Wooten v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01263-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-01263-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-07-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Vindictive prosecution - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cruel and unusual punishment Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2010 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Dismissed Case Number: 2010-133-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Larry Wooten |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Vindictive prosecution - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cruel and unusual punishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Wooten pled guilty to two counts of selling less than thirty grams of marijuana. The circuit court sentenced Wooten to nine years. Wooten filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Wooten appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Wooten argues that his guilty plea is invalid because it was involuntary. Specifically, Wooten alleges that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. However, other than the assertions in his brief, Wooten has presented no evidence that his plea was coerced. Based on Wooten’s sworn answers within his plea petition, Wooten made his plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Furthermore, during his plea colloquy, Wooten stated under oath that he was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty. Issue 2: Vindictive prosecution Wooten argues that he was subjected to vindictive prosecution when he was denied discovery. However, the record contains a letter from the State to Wooten’s attorney, responding to the request for discovery. While the State declined to send privileged information and its work-product, the record does not indicate that Wooten was denied discovery. Furthermore, a valid guilty plea acts as a waiver of any discovery violations that might have occurred. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Wooten argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his court appointed attorney failed to adequately communicate with him prior to the plea hearing. Wooten has failed to provide any affidavits in support of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Instead, his claim is based solely on the assertions made in his brief. Furthermore, during his plea colloquy, Wooten stated under oath that he was satisfied with his attorney’s representation and that he had no complaints to make against her. Issue 4: Cruel and unusual punishment Wooten argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Generally, sentences that do not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute will not be considered grossly disproportionate and will not be disturbed on appeal. The sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum; therefore, it may not be disturbed on appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
