Coleman v. State
| Docket Number: | 2006-CP-01091-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CP-01091-COA ; 2006-CT-01091-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-12-2007 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Revocation of probation - Evidentiary hearing - Frivolous motion Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2006 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: Denied post-conviction relief Case Number: 05-CV-182(B) |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2006-CP-01090-COA Robin Michael Coleman v. State of Mississippi; Lauderdale Circuit Court; LC Case #: 05-CV-121(R); Ruling Date: 05/31/2006; Ruling Judge: Robert Bailey; Consolidated with 2006-CP-01089-COA Robin Michael Coleman v. State of Mississippi; Lauderdale Circuit Court; LC Case #: 05-CV-183(B) | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robin Michael Coleman |
ROBIN MICHAEL COLEMAN (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Revocation of probation - Evidentiary hearing - Frivolous motion |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robin Coleman pled guilty in two cases of forgery. The court sentenced him to two fifteen year sentences with both fifteen year sentences suspended and five years’ probation. After Coleman was again charged with forgery, his probation was modified and he was placed in the restitution program. His probation was later revoked for failing to comply with the requirements of the restitution program. He entered a third guilty plea and received a five-year sentence with four years and 364 days suspended. He then filed motions for post-conviction relief, which the court granted in part and denied in part. Coleman appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Coleman argues that his plea was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent because he did not know that the actual maximum penalty for forgery was ten years and not fifteen years, which is what the lawyers and judges told him and for which he was sentenced. The failure to inform a defendant of a minimum sentence will not result in vacating the sentence where it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plea would have been entered even if the minimum sentence were known. Under section 99-19-33, where the statutory penalty for a crime is lessened between the time of the commission of the crime and sentencing, it is proper to apply the lesser sentence. An excessive sentence should be corrected by amendment of the invalid sentence, not by discharge of the prisoner. Coleman’s argument that he was induced to plead guilty because of a possible fifteen-year sentence is misleading. He faced not only the two charges to which he pled guilty, but also another eleven charges that the trial court dismissed as a result of the plea bargain. He did not plead guilty merely to get a ten or fifteen-year suspended sentence but also to avoid being tried on all thirteen of the forgery charges for which he was indicted. While Coleman argues that his attorney affirmatively misstated the maximum sentence in order to induce him to plead guilty, he offers no evidence to support his argument. Coleman entered a valid plea; however, he was given an invalid sentence. The court properly applied section 99-13-19 and addressed the error in sentencing by amending Coleman’s sentence to ten years. He was in no way prejudiced, and he ultimately received a lesser sentence than what he expected. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Coleman argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming deficient performance on the part of defense counsel by failing to advise Coleman of the amended sentence, it is unlikely the outcome of the case would have been different. Therefore, Coleman has failed to meet the requirements to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. Issue 3: Revocation of probation Coleman argues that the revocation of his probation was unlawful. Coleman admitted violating the terms of his probation; therefore, it was properly revoked. Issue 4: Evidentiary hearing It is not error for the trial court to deny an evidentiary hearing for a post-conviction relief motion when the defendant does not submit any affidavits besides his own or any evidence to support his claims. It was within the judge’s discretion to determine whether the issues presented warranted an evidentiary hearing. Finding that they did not, he properly considered them and issued an order denying them. Coleman also failed to provide any supporting evidence or affidavits indicating that there were any issues that would warrant an evidentiary hearing. Issue 5: Frivolous motion Coleman argues that the court abused its discretion by finding his motion to be frivolous. The court may order a defendant to forfeit time served for filing a frivolous lawsuit. This applies to a pro se litigant who files a motion for post-conviction relief equally as it does to a party represented by counsel. The court ordered the motion for post-conviction relief dismissed as frivolous because there was no newly discovered evidence as Coleman claimed. Furthermore, Coleman stated at his plea hearing that he was satisfied with the performance of his counsel. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to find Coleman’s motion was frivolous and order a forfeiture of sixty days accrued time. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
