Ross v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01799-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Production of records - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dimissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-25-2005 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: DISMISSED Case Number: 2002-0105-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Ross |
WILLIE ROSS (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: | Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Production of records - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Ross pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced to twenty five years as a habitual offender. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Ross argues that he was induced into pleading guilty with promises of a twenty year sentence, and never would have so pled if he had known he was to be charged as a habitual offender and sentenced to twenty-five years. Ross’s plea agreement states that he was fully aware of the consequences of his guilty plea, his habitual offender status, and that the prosecutor would recommend a twenty-five year sentence. Furthermore, the transcript of Ross’s plea hearing evinces his understanding of his plea as a habitual offender and makes clear that said plea was given freely and voluntarily. Issue 2: Production of records Ross argues that he was improperly denied his request for production of records. As the court made no error in summarily dismissing Ross’s Petition, Ross has not met the initial burden of surviving dismissal as set out in section 99-39-11(2), let alone providing a basis worthy of the trial court’s discretion, that would entitle him to free copies of his records. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Ross argues that his attorney’s performance was deficient in that he allowed Ross to enter a guilty plea to twenty years all the while knowing that the prosecutor planned to charge him as a habitual offender, thus requiring nothing less than the maximum sentence of twenty-five years. In direct contradiction to these claims of deficiency, Ross stated in his petition to enter a guilty plea that he was fully informed as to the charges against him, that he would be charged as a habitual offender, that he entered the guilty plea freely and voluntarily, that he believed his lawyer had done all anyone could do to counsel and assist him, and that he was satisfied with the help his attorney had given him. In addition, he failed to offer any affidavits or additional proof in support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel other than his own beliefs. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
