Harris v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01325-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-01325-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2005 Appealed from: Wayne County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: DENIED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: CV-2004-116® |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Derrick Cordell Harris |
DERRICK CORDELL HARRIS (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 - Evidentiary hearing - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Derrick Harris pled guilty to a charge of simple murder and was sentenced to life in prison. Harris filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Harris argues that the court erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before dismissing his petition. A summary disposition of the motion is warranted when it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief. Since Harris is not entitled to any relief, the court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Harris argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was confused about the plea and that had he understood, he would not have agreed to plead guilty. A plea of guilt is voluntary and intelligently made only when a defendant has been advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. The sworn petition to enter a plea of guilty shows that Harris knew he was charged with capital murder which carried a minimum sentence of life in prison and a maximum sentence of death. Further the petition states that he desired to plead guilty to the charge of murder (not capital) and that the possible sentence was life imprisonment. Harris signed the petition to enter a plea of guilty and acknowledged his signature to it at the plea hearing. The trial court asked Harris repeatedly whether he understood what he was pleading guilty to and whether that was what he wanted to do, and Harris answered that he did. This record supports the trial court’s assessment that Harris voluntarily and knowingly entered his guilty plea. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Harris argues that his counsel failed upon numerous requests to conduct any form of investigation of the case and failed to interview witnesses. Harris’s argument of ineffective assistance of counsel is not supported by the record. Harris was asked by the court at his plea hearing whether he was satisfied with the assistance he received from his counsel, and he admitted under oath that he was. In addition, his attorneys were able to secure a plea bargain which spared Harris the possibility of a sentence of death. Issue 4: Defective indictment Harris argues that the indictment did not contain the underlying circumstances or facts to support the charge of capital murder and did not give an exact date of the murder. However, the indictment clearly set the date of the offense as December 29 or 30, 2001. In addition, the indictment states that Harris shot the victim while “engaged in the commission of the crime of robbery.” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
