Garner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01520-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-01520-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-12-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Venue - Section 99-15-24 - Evidentiary hearing - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Myers, P.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2004 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS DENIED. Case Number: CV04-162(PF)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Emory Garner |
JAMES EMORY GARNER (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 - Venue - Section 99-15-24 - Evidentiary hearing - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Garner pled guilty to armed robbery. Garner filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. Garner appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Venue Garner argues that he was never properly arraigned or appointed counsel on the Lee County charge because the Circuit Court of Monroe County lacked the power to accept his guilty plea to a Lee County charge. The propriety of the Circuit Court of Monroe County's acceptance of Garner's guilty plea to a Lee County charge is established by section 99-15-24 which provides that in criminal cases in circuit courts, guilty pleas may be taken in any county in the circuit court district that contains the county in which venue lies. Garner's offense was charged to have been committed in Lee County. Lee County is in the First Circuit Court District. Any other circuit court in the First Circuit Court District could have accepted Garner's guilty plea. The Monroe County Circuit Court is in the First Circuit Court District. Issue 2: Evidentiary hearing The State concedes that Garner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Garner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether his plea was involuntary due to erroneous information about his parole eligibility and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel's mistaken advice about his parole eligibility. Issue 3: Defective indictment Garner argues that his indictment failed to charge an essential element of armed robbery, namely, the exhibition of a deadly weapon. An indictment must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It must fully notify the defendant of the nature of the charge and the cause of the accusation. Plainly, the Lee County indictment contains no explicit charge of the exhibition of a deadly weapon. Nor did the indictment charge acts that would constitute the exhibition of a deadly weapon. The indictment charged Garner with effecting the robbery by placing the cashier in fear of immediate injury to her person by pointing a finger concealed in a coat at the cashier and representing that he had a pistol. Garner admitted to those acts at the plea hearing. But because the indictment omitted the "exhibition of a deadly weapon" element, Garner was not placed on notice that the State would attempt to prove that he had exhibited a deadly weapon. Therefore, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the offense of armed robbery. The indictment properly announced a charge of simple robbery. Although it was sufficient to convey jurisdiction upon the court to accept Garner's plea of guilt to simple robbery, Garner's guilty plea was involuntary because he was not informed of the true nature and consequences of the charge and thus the case will not be reversed and remanded for sentencing on simple robbery. Issue 4: Voluntariness of plea Garner moves to withdraw the guilty plea due to involuntariness, because he was not informed of the true nature and consequences of the charge against him. The record reflects that Garner, his attorney, the prosecutor, and the trial court all thought that Garner's indictment charged him with armed robbery. The record evinces that the explanations given to Garner about the nature of the charge, the possible sentences and other consequences of the plea, and the plea bargaining process all pertained to armed robbery, not to simple robbery. For this reason, Garner's guilty plea was not voluntary in a constitutional sense. Garner was under the erroneous belief that he could be sentenced to life imprisonment were he to proceed to trial and be found guilty, when in fact he could have received only fifteen years. His armed robbery conviction is reversed and rendered, his guilty plea vacated, and the case remanded for proceedings on the simple robbery charge. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
