Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01702-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-22-2006 Opinion Author: Southwick, J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Proper indictment Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Dissenting Author : Irving and Barnes, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: King, C.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-15-2005 Appealed from: Marshall County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: RELIEF DENIED Case Number: M2005-184 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Douglas Jones |
DOUGLAS JONES (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Proper indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Douglas Jones pled guilty to the crime of sexual battery. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Jones argues that his guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered because he was not informed of the elements of the charge. A guilty plea is not valid unless it is made with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. At the hearing accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must assure itself that a defendant understands the nature and elements of the crime for which he is admitting guilt. Here, the judge when accepting the plea examined Jones to ensure that he had reviewed the petition to plead guilty with his attorney and that the signature on the petition was authentic. The court neither referred to the elements of the crime nor asked counsel whether he had explained the elements to Jones. The court made reference to the petition and the petition made reference to the indictment, but there was never any specific assurance that the elements of the crime were explained to Jones. The petition does not summarize the elements of the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court requires a reliable indication that the defendant has had the elements of his offense explained. Thus, this case is reversed and remanded for a hearing as to whether Jones actually had the elements of the offense explained to him prior to the time that he pled guilty, and whether there was a factual basis for the plea. Issue 2: Proper indictment Jones argues that the indictment should have stated that the penetration was knowingly or intentionally committed. Sexual battery is not a specific intent crime and thus the indictment need not refer to a specific intent. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
