Jewell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00811-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CT-00811-SCT ; 2005-CP-00811-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-26-2006 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - Prison mailbox rule - M.R.E. 803(10), 902(4), 902(11) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ., Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2005 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: JOHN RICHARD YOUNG Case Number: CV05-019(A)(L) |
|
| Note: | The Appellee's motion for rehearing is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Isaac Jewell, II |
ISAAC JEWELL, II (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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: | Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - Prison mailbox rule - M.R.E. 803(10), 902(4), 902(11) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Isaac Jewell, II pled guilty to the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to twenty years, with ten years suspended and five years of post-release supervision. Jewell filed a motion seeking post-conviction collateral relief, which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appeal The State argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction because Jewell’s notice of appeal was filed six days late. M.R.A.P. 4(a) requires that a notice of appeal must be filed in the trial court within thirty days of the entry of the order or judgment appealed. A pro se prisoner’s motion for post-conviction relief is delivered for filing under the UPCCRA and the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure when the prisoner delivers the papers to prison authorities for mailing. The State is the movant in a request to dismiss for lack of timeliness and, therefore, bears the burden of proof. The proof must be in the form of a “prison mail log of legal mail,” or some similarly reliable documentation. A self-authenticating certificate from the records custodian pursuant to M.R.E. 803(10), 902(4), or 902(11) may well suffice. Although the record in this case does not support Jewell’s assertion that the notice was delivered to prison officials within the thirty days, the State has failed to meet its burden of showing that the notice was not timely mailed. In cases such as Jewell’s, where the appellant’s notice of appeal is filed by the clerk of the trial court within a reasonable time after the expiration of the thirty days allowed by Rule 4(a), a rebuttable presumption exists that the appellant’s appeal was timely filed, in accordance with the prison mailbox rule. Therefore, in such cases, if the State requests a dismissal for want of a timely appeal it must successfully rebut the presumption of timeliness with proof of its absence. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jewell argues that his attorney provided deficient assistance because she failed to file a timely motion to suppress prior to his guilty plea. However, the record does not indicate that the motion was untimely filed. Jewell’s attorney worked with the State to reduce Jewell’s outstanding charges as a result of the plea bargain, and Jewell has not sufficiently proven her performance was deficient. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Jewell argues that his confession was inadmissible, the search and seizure was illegal and the guilty plea was involuntary. A plea is voluntary if the defendant knows what the elements are of the charge against him including an understanding of the charge and its relation to him, what effect the plea will have, and what the possible sentence might be because of his plea. During the plea hearing, Jewell indicated that he understood the nature of the charges as well as the sentences he faced and that he understood the consequences of the plea. As such, the record refutes Jewell’s unsubstantiated assertion that his guilty plea was involuntary. Since Jewell’s confession was voluntarily given, he waived his right to contest the admissibility of evidence seized in the search as well as the admissibility of his confession. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
