Medlock v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CP-01613-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-14-2010
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Speedy trial - Voluntariness of plea
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-14-2009
Appealed from: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: James McClure, III
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: CV2009-0258MT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Sedric Medlock




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS  

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 - Evidentiary hearing - Speedy trial - Voluntariness of plea

Summary of the Facts: Sedric Medlock pled guilty to sale of a controlled substance and possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. Medlock timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Medlock appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Medlock argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. A post-conviction claim for relief is properly dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing where it is manifestly without merit. Medlock alleged that: he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; his plea was entered involuntarily; and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record shows that the circuit court correctly found that Medlock's PCR motion was “overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record.” Thus, Medlock was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Speedy trial Medlock argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial because his guilty plea occurred 281 days after he was arrested. With the entry of Medlock’s guilty plea, Medlock waived any speedy-trial violations. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Medlock argues that he involuntarily entered his guilty plea. There is no support in the record for Medlock's allegation that he did not knowingly enter the guilty plea, nor is there any indication in the record that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court