Hamilton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01523-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Due process - Defective indictment - Cruel and unusual punishment - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-01-2009 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: CV09-088-GLZ |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Dondra Hamilton |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY | ||
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 - Due process - Defective indictment - Cruel and unusual punishment - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dondrá Hamilton pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine and one count of possession of more than two grams of cocaine with intent to sell, within 1,500 feet of a church. The circuit court sentenced Hamilton to sixty years’ imprisonment on the possession charge and thirty years on the sale charge. All but ten years of each sentence was suspended. Hamilton filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Hamilton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process Hamilton argues that the vehicle was wrongfully searched without a warrant and that he was interrogated without receiving Miranda warnings. He also argues that neither he nor the vehicle was within 1,500 feet of a church when the cocaine was discovered. Hamilton waived these objections by pleading guilty. A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial. Issue 2: Defective indictment Hamilton argues that the indictments were defective. This issue is procedurally barred because Hamilton failed to raise it in his principal brief on appeal. In addition, the indictments are sufficient. Hamilton’s only specific allegation – that the indictment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute failed to allege that he “knowingly or intentionally” did so – is without merit. The indictment alleges that Hamilton had “wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously” committed the offense. This is, in substance, the same as an allegation that the act was “knowingly or intelligently” committed. Issue 3: Cruel and unusual punishment Hamilton argues that he was subjected to an ex post facto sentence enhancement and that his sentences are grossly disproportionate to the offenses committed. Although Hamilton recited the allegation of an ex post facto sentence in his brief on appeal, he did not support it with argument or citation to authority. This issue is therefore procedurally barred. In addition, whether Hamilton benefitted from a 2008 amendment is unclear, but even if he did not, it could not have enhanced or increased the severity of his sentence. Hamilton’s sentences are within the statutory limits, and he has made no effort to substantiate his argument through the disproportionality analysis. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Hamilton argues that his attorney failed to interview witnesses who would have corroborated his account of the events. Hamilton has failed to support this issue except through his own allegations. Where a party offers only his affidavit, then his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit. Issue 5: Evidentiary hearing Hamilton argues that his PCR motion should be remanded to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing. But to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must demonstrate, by affidavit or otherwise, that there are unresolved issues of fact that, if concluded favorably to the petitioner, would warrant relief. This may not be accomplished through Hamilton’s own unsupported allegations. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
