Raine v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01878-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-01-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Factual basis for plea - Section 97-19-55 - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Without Separate Opinion Concurs in Result Only: Maxwell, J. Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-16-2009 Appealed from: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Denied |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Marco S. Raine |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. | ||
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 - Factual basis for plea - Section 97-19-55 - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Marco Raine pled guilty to the felony of issuing a bad check. The court sentenced him to two years, with thirteen months to serve and the remaining eleven months to be served as post-release supervision. Raine filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. Raine appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Before the circuit court accepted Raine’s guilty plea, it was required to determine that there was a factual basis for the plea, i.e., substantial evidence that the accused did commit the legally defined offense to which he is offering the plea. Ultimately, enough facts must have been presented to convince the circuit court that the prosecution could prove the accused guilty of the crime charged. Raine argues that his attorney did not inform him that writing a postdated check is not a crime. Section 97-19-55, which proscribes uttering of a bad check, requires fraudulent intent. Unquestionably, if someone writes a postdated check, notifies the recipient of the check that it is postdated, and the recipient then knowingly accepts the check, the writer of the check cannot be found guilty of writing a bad check simply because the recipient unilaterally attempted to present it for payment prior to the agreed-upon date. Some further evidence would have to be presented to show that the check’s writer possessed fraudulent intent at the time he wrote the postdated check, regardless of whether there were sufficient funds to cover the check after it was presented prematurely. Raine has presented compelling evidence to show that the check that he wrote was postdated and that Titan Motorsports’ salesman unilaterally altered the date on the check and attempted to cash it weeks before they had agreed that the salesman would do so. In fact, the first time that Raine attempted to plead guilty, he informed the circuit court of those facts. The circuit court then rejected his plea. When the circuit court eventually accepted Raine’s plea, Raine admitted only that he wrote a check at a time when he knew he did not then have funds in his bank to cover the check. However, nothing about that admission precludes the possibility that Raine wrote a postdated check that Titan Motorsports had agreed to present at a later date. Notably, Raine never admitted to possessing fraudulent intent when he wrote the check. Under these circumstances, the circuit court should have granted Raine an evidentiary hearing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
