Haynes v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-01440-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-28-2006
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Reversed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Roberts, J.
Dissent Joined By : Myers, P.J. and Griffis, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-15-2005
Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court
Judge: Mike Smith
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
Case Number: 05-053-PCS

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Steven Haynes




STEVEN HAYNES (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO  

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

Summary of the Facts: Steven Haynes pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The plea agreement, as read into the record by the prosecutor at Haynes’ guilty plea hearing, was that “the State recommends 25 years, 20 suspended with 5 years to serve and 5 years probation. This count to run concurrently with the defendant’s current sentence, or the remainder of the defendant’s current sentence. . . .” The court accepted this recommendation and sentenced Haynes to twenty-five years, with five years to serve, the five years to run concurrently to a prior sentence that Haynes was serving at the time of the hearing. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Haynes argues that his sentence was running consecutively instead of concurrently. He also pointed out that his time sheet directly contradicted the information told to him by his attorney and attached a letter sent to him by his attorney as proof. The State argues that Haynes is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because a circuit court may dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing when it plainly appears from the petition, the court’s files, and prior proceedings that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The Mississippi Supreme Court has specifically held that failure to mention something concerning parole eligibility may be no problem, but erroneous information concerning parole and sentencing at least entitles the petitioner to an evidentiary hearing on whether he relied on the erroneous information. Here, the record reflects a strong likelihood that Haynes was given erroneous information concerning the effect or meaning of a concurrent sentence. The letter from his attorney indicates that he had told Haynes that Haynes’ present sentence would terminate upon completion of Haynes’ prior sentence. As such, Haynes is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he relied on the erroneous information from his attorney.


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