Moreno v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CP-01001-COA
Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01001-COA ; 2009-CT-01001-SCT ; 2009-CT-01001-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-01-2011
Opinion Author: King, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Jurisdiction - Section 99-11-3 - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, P.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J. Without Separate Written Opinion
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2009
Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court
Judge: Prentiss Greene Harrell
Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Denied
Case Number: 2008-202H

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Arturo Aquirre Moreno




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

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 - Jurisdiction - Section 99-11-3 - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Arturo Moreno pled guilty to one count of DUI manslaughter and two counts of DUI mayhem. He filed two motions for post-conviction relief which were both denied. After Moreno's trial counsel was reprimanded by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, Moreno petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to proceed in the trial court on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The supreme court granted the motion and ordered an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that Moreno had received effective assistance of counsel and denied his third motion for post-conviction relief. Moreno appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction Moreno argues that the indictments were issued in violation of section 99-11-3, which states local jurisdiction of all offenses is in the county where they were committed. Moreno argues that Lamar County is an improper venue because the automobile accident, and a passenger's subsequent death, occurred in Forrest County. A petitioner’s claim of improper venue will fail unless supported by sufficient evidence within the record. Moreno fails to point to any evidence in the record that might support the claim that the intersection in which the accident occurred lies within Forrest County. Issue 2: Double jeopardy Moreno argues that the indictments for DUI manslaughter and two counts of DUI mayhem subject him to double jeopardy because his driving while intoxicated only constituted one offense. Moreno raised this argument in his first motion for post-conviction relief. All issues, both factual and legal, that have been previously decided at trial and/or on direct appeal are barred from review as res judicata. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Moreno argues that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to communicate the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences, failed to appear in court, failed to present certain evidence regarding Moreno's theory of defense in court, and failed to explain the consequences of a guilty plea. During the plea hearing, Moreno, through his translator, stated under oath that he had confidence in his attorney, and his attorney had explained the details of the charges against him and the consequences associated with entering a guilty plea. Great weight is given to statements made under oath and in open court during sentencing. Moreno failed to demonstrate any deficiency on the part of his attorney, which resulted in prejudice.


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