Anderson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-01136-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-21-2006
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: Affirmed

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

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-08-2005
Appealed from: Holmes County Circuit Court
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 2005-231

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: W. D. Anderson a/k/a W. D. Anderson, Jr.




W. D. ANDERSON (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Evidentiary hearing

Summary of the Facts: W. D. Anderson pled guilty to robbery and aggravated assault. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to two concurrent life sentences. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Anderson argues that his trial counsel were ineffective because they failed to investigate the facts. The trial judge correctly refused to set aside Anderson’s pleas and sentences based on Anderson’s bald allegations that his counsel failed to effectively represent him. Although Anderson presented four affidavits with his motion, none of the affidavits offered any substantive facts in support of Anderson’s contention that his pleas were not voluntary because of the ineffectiveness of his counsel. Based on the indictment, Anderson could have received the death penalty had he gone to trial and been convicted of capital murder as alleged in Count I. It is difficult to see how Anderson can reasonably argue that his attorneys did not serve him well when they negotiated a plea that prevented him from facing the death penalty. Anderson also argues in this appeal that the trial judge abused her discretion in refusing to appoint new counsel to represent him and in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion to vacate judgment and sentence. Based on the record, including Anderson’s sworn testimony at the plea hearing and his sworn petition to enter a guilty plea, an evidentiary hearing was not required.


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