Steen v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00650-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-18-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Excessive sentence - Time bar Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2005 Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: C2004-008 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brian O. Steen |
BRIAN O. STEEN (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Excessive sentence - Time bar |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brian Steen pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to thirty years with fifteen years suspended. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Steen argues that he did not know all the consequences when he entered his plea of guilty. Steen was advised of his rights; therefore, this issue has no merit. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Steen argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Steen has failed to prove that his counsel was ineffective; therefore, this issue has no merit. Issue 3: Excessive sentence Usually a sentence cannot be disturbed on appeal as long as it does not exceed the maximum term set by statute. Steen’s sentence is within the statute. Issue 4: Time bar Steen argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that his petition for post-conviction relief was time-barred. While the circuit court may have erroneously based its denial of the petition for post-conviction relief as being time-barred, the circuit court was correct in denying Steen’s petition for the reasons set forth in this opinion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
