Brown v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00908-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-08-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-12-2005 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2005-0073© |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kendrick Brown |
KENDRICK BROWN (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kendrick Brown pled guilty to two counts for the sale of a schedule II controlled substance. He was sentenced to twenty years on each count with ten years to serve and ten years suspended on each count and five years of post-release supervision. Brown filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed by the circuit court. Brown appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Brown argues that he did not know his sentence was illegal at the time that he pled guilty and, therefore, he did not understand the nature and the consequences of his plea. If the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge and the consequences of the entry of the plea, the plea will be considered voluntary and intelligent. The trial judge inquired whether Brown had an opportunity to fully discuss, with his attorney, the facts and circumstances relating to the crimes with which he was charged. The trial judge also asked whether Brown was aware that a guilty plea waives his constitutional right to remain silent and right to a trial by jury. Also, the judge specifically questioned whether Brown was freely and voluntarily admitting guilt to the crimes in which he was charged. Brown answered in the affirmative to all of these questions. There is no evidence that Brown entered his plea involuntarily or unknowingly. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Brown argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel only gave him the choice to plead guilty and because counsel did not know the law regarding the sale of cocaine or the facts of the case. The record shows that Brown informed the court that he had discussed with his counsel all facts and circumstances relating to the crimes with which he was charged. There is no evidence to indicate that counsel was unaware of the facts of the case or of the law pertaining to the sale of cocaine. Issue 3: Defective indictment Brown argues that the indictment failed to address the quantity of cocaine that was allegedly sold. A valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects to an indictment. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Because Brown’s sentence fell within the statutory guidelines, the sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
