Barnes v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00705-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00705-COA ; 2007-CT-00705-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2010 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Amendment to indictment - Due process - Plea transcript - Competency hearing - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2007 Appealed from: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael M. Taylor Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2006-59LT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Cearic A. Barnes |
WANDA TURNER-LEE ABIOTO |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Amendment to indictment - Due process - Plea transcript - Competency hearing - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cearic Barnes pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Barnes argues that his counsel failed to adequately investigate the facts; he failed to raise procedural and factual issues; and he allowed Barnes to enter an involuntary plea of guilty. Where a party offers only his affidavit, his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is without merit. Because Barnes has failed to meet his initial burden of proof, to establish deficient performance, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Barnes argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because it was the product of coercion from his counsel, i.e., his fear of being sentenced to death, along with the fact that he was merely eighteen years old at the time of trial, made it impossible for him to knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter a plea of guilty. A plea induced by fear, violence, deception or improper inducements is not voluntary. Defense attorney has an obligation to fairly, even if pessimistically, inform the client of the likely outcome of a trial based upon the facts of the case. If, after assessing the case, counsel feels as if his client should take a plea, he is obligated to inform his client, no matter how grim the assessment may be. Even if Barnes accepted the plea bargain entirely because he was afraid of the death penalty, the plea would nonetheless be voluntary. Issue 3: Amendment to indictment Barnes argues that his guilty plea to murder must be set aside because the original indictment, which charged him with capital murder, was amended to say “In the Circuit Court of Adams County” as opposed to “In the Circuit Court of Lincoln County.” This is a clear example of a harmless scrivener’s error. Errors in a particular case that are unimportant and insignificant be deemed harmless, thereby not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction. Issue 4: Due process Barnes argues that he was denied his right to due process because the circuit court failed to inform him that he could appeal the sentence imposed on him as a result of his guilty plea despite the fact that he could not appeal the plea itself. While it is true that a defendant may appeal the sentence resulting from a guilty plea independently of the plea itself, there is no corresponding requirement that the circuit court notify the defendant of that right during the plea process. Issue 5: Plea transcript Barnes argues that the circuit court erred in failing to provide a transcript of the plea proceedings. If Barnes was dissatisfied with the record that was prepared by the clerk, he had an opportunity to amend it. The burden falls upon an appellant to ensure the record contains sufficient evidence to support his assignments of error on appeal. Issue 6: Competency hearing There is nothing in the record indicating Barnes raised the issue of competency in the circuit court. It is well-settled law that issues not raised below will not be decided on appeal. Issue 7: Evidentiary hearing Barnes argues the circuit court erred when it failed to grant him an evidentiary hearing on his motion for post-conviction relief. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge shall make such disposition of the motion as justice shall require. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
