Mitchell v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-00327-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00327-COA ; 2010-CT-00327-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-05-2011
Opinion Author: Myers, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Amendment of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-25-2010
Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court
Judge: Andrew K. Howorth
Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Dismissed
Case Number: L09-428

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Derrick Mitchell




PRO SE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

    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 - Amendment of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel

    Summary of the Facts: Derrick Mitchell pled guilty to selling cocaine, as a habitual offender, and he was sentenced to ten years without eligibility for probation or parole. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Mitchell argues that when his indictment was amended to charge him as a habitual offender, the date of judgment was omitted for each of his previous convictions and this made the habitual-offender portion of his indictment invalid. Even though the date of judgment for each prior conviction was not provided in the amendment to Mitchell’s indictment, all the information contained therein afforded Mitchell access to the date of judgment. The amendment provides the nature and description of each prior felony conviction; it indicates the court in which each conviction was adjudicated; it states the sentence given by the court for each conviction and that Mitchell served one year or more for each sentence; and it provides the cause number for each case. All this fairly enabled Mitchell to defend against the State’s habitual-offender charge if Mitchell so chose. Mitchell also argues that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to the fact that the date of judgment for each of his prior convictions was not provided in the amendment to the indictment. Mitchell was required to show that but for his counsel’s error(s): he would not have pleaded guilty; he would have instead insisted on going to trial; and the ultimate outcome would have been different. Mitchell failed to make such a showing.


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