Knight v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00110-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-00110-COA ; 2005-CT-00110-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 09-12-2006 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Gratification of lust - Successive writ - Voluntariness of plea - Sufficiency of indictment - Evidence of penetration - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-22-2004 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: Denied post-conviction relief Case Number: 2004-0279R |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Shawn Louis Knight |
|||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi |
|
||
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: | Gratification of lust - Successive writ - Voluntariness of plea - Sufficiency of indictment - Evidence of penetration - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shawn Knight pled guilty to gratification of lust and was sentenced to fifteen years, with five years suspended. Knight filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied on its merits. He appeals. The Court of Appeals ordered the lower court to supplement the record with the plea hearing transcript. The lower court complied; however, it was accompanied by an ex parte “Supplemental Findings of the Trial Court” which stated that the trial court should have considered the petition a successive writ. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Successive writ Knight argues that the lower court has violated proper procedure and waived its holding regarding the successive writ by not considering it in the first place. It is the duty and responsibility of the State to present arguments that refute Knight’s petition for post-conviction relief. The State did not raise the successive issue below, nor did it raise it on appeal. Having failed to do so, the State’s argument that Knight’s petition is a successive writ now is barred. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Knight argues that he never waived his rights in a face-to-face exchange with the trial court judge and that the trial court never discussed the elements of sexual battery. A plea is voluntary and intelligent when the defendant is informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. Prior to Knight’s plea hearing, he and seven other defendants viewed a “Guilty Plea Video.” In the video, the trial court explained the guilty plea process. In the document entitled “Acknowledgment of Viewing the Guilty Plea Video,” Knight was asked to initial each statement that he understood. There is also a copy of the plea petition, signed by Knight, which enumerates the same constitutional rights. The judge’s failure to explain each right during the plea hearing is not fatal to the voluntariness of the plea. The video and plea petition sufficiently explained the constitutional rights that Knight would waive if he pled guilty. The trial court determined in a face-to-face exchange that Knight understood the video and plea petition. Knight argues that he was never informed of the elements of sexual battery for which he was indicted. Indeed, the trial court judge informed Knight of the elements of gratification of lust, the lesser offense to which Knight was pleading guilty. His understanding of the additional elements required to prove sexual battery is a nonissue. Issue 3: Sufficiency of indictment Knight argues that the indictment failed to list all of the elements of the crime charged. Even if the trial court had dismissed Count I as being defective, Count II standing alone was sufficient to charge a crime. The indictment alleges that he engaged in sexual penetration with the victim against her will which was sufficient to charge the crime of sexual battery. Issue 4: Evidence of penetration Knight argues there was no evidence of penetration, and therefore, the grand jury should not have indicted him for sexual battery. A guilty plea waives the right to trial and the right that the prosecution prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Knight argues that his attorney did not adequately explain the charges and that his attorney failed to investigate the evidence against Knight. There is no proof that his attorney did not explain the charges to him. To the contrary, he twice swore under oath that his attorney explained the charges to him and that he understood them. He also offers no evidence that his attorney did not investigate this piece of evidence, or explain how he has the doctor’s report, if his attorney did not. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
