Lewis v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CP-02041-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-08-2011
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Section 99-17-20 - URCCC 7.06 - Voluntariness of plea
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-02-2009
Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court
Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr.
Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Dismissed
Case Number: 2009-0029-CV1

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Robert E. Lewis, Jr.




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS  

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 - Defective indictment - Section 99-17-20 - URCCC 7.06 - Voluntariness of plea

Summary of the Facts: Robert Lewis, Jr. pled guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole, as a habitual offender. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Defective indictment Lewis argues that his indictment violates section 99-17-20 because it fails to list the subsection of the capital murder statute under which he was charged and therefore he was misinformed about the true nature of the charged crimes. URCCC 7.06 requires indictments to contain a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. The ultimate test, when considering the validity of an indictment on appeal, is whether the defendant was prejudiced in the preparation of his defense. Additionally, when the charge is capital murder, section 99-17-20 requires that the relevant code section be cited to place the defendant on notice as to what makes the offense a capital one. However, a valid guilty plea waives all technical and non-jurisdictional defects in an indictment. Admittedly, Lewis’s indictment does not include the relevant subsection for capital murder anywhere in the document. However, the indictment does provide essential facts concerning the offense charged and adequately informs Lewis of the nature of the charges against him, meeting all of the requirements of URCCC 7.06. The indictment specifically states that Lewis was charged with “capital murder” under section 97-3-19 “while engaged in the commission of . . . robbery.” Thus, the indictment was sufficient to give Lewis reasonable notice of the crime charged so he could prepare an adequate defense. Even if Lewis’s indictment was defective for not including the subsection for capital murder, by pleading guilty Lewis waived his rights to any technical or nonjurisdictional defects in his indictment, which would include this omission. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Lewis argues that his guilty plea was invalid because he was misinformed about the nature of his crime due to his indictment’s omission of the subsection for capital murder. A plea is voluntarily and intelligently given if the trial court advises the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. The transcript of Lewis’s plea hearing shows that he voluntarily admitted under oath that he was guilty of the charge of capital murder. The State explained its proof would show that Lewis shot and killed the victim while robbing him. The trial judge also advised Lewis of the nature of the charge, the effect of the plea on his rights, and the sentence. There is no evidence in the transcript to suggest that Lewis was “misinformed” or lacked “real notice” of the charge of capital murder just because the subsection of the murder statute was not included on his indictment.


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