Henderson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01824-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01824-COA ; 2009-CT-01824-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-14-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to appeal - Section 99-35-101 - Competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-20-2009 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2009-240-9-21-09 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Allen Henderson |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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 - Right to appeal - Section 99-35-101 - Competency hearing - URCCC 9.06 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Allen Henderson pled guilty to child abandonment and manslaughter. He was sentenced to twenty years for the manslaughter conviction and to seven years, with five years suspended and two to serve, for the child-abandonment conviction. Henderson filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Henderson argues that he unwillingly pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and he contends that the plea colloquy contained in the record demonstrates as much. He also argues that there was no factual basis to support his guilty plea to manslaughter. To determine whether the plea is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given, the trial court must advise the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. The trial court must also determine that there is a factual basis for the plea. According to the plea colloquy, the trial court thoroughly advised Henderson of his rights, the nature and elements of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of his guilty plea. The colloquy shows Henderson expressly indicated to the trial court’s satisfaction that he understood each of the trial court’s advisements, and he wished to waive the rights ordinarily due a criminal defendant in a criminal prosecution. The State offered a factual basis for the charge of manslaughter, and the trial court asked both Henderson and his attorney whether they had any disagreement that the State could prove its case for manslaughter. Both replied, “No.” Accordingly, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Henderson argues that there was evidence in the case that the victim died as a result of a “seizure,” and his attorney failed to investigate the victim’s medical history. Henderson also argues that his attorney should have filed a motion requesting that a psychiatric evaluation be conducted due to the “unusual and erratic behavior” he had exhibited. Henderson provided nothing in support of the assertions on this issue. This is not enough to establish a claim that Henderson was subjected to counsel’s ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions. Issue 3: Right to appeal Henderson argues that he was denied due process of law by the trial court’s failure to advise him of his right to appeal his sentence directly to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Section 99-35-101 was amended, effective July 1, 2008, to provide that “where [a] defendant enters a plea of guilty and is sentenced, then no appeal from the trial court to the Supreme Court shall be allowed.” Henderson pleaded guilty over a year after this amendment went into effect. Rightly, the trial court did not misinform Henderson. Issue 4: Competency hearing Henderson argues that pursuant to URCCC 9.06, the trial court was required to order a mental evaluation and to conduct a competency hearing in this instance. Henderson fails to provide any information in support of his competency claim, other than the bare assertion that he was not competent at the time of the guilty-plea hearing. This is not a sufficient showing that he lacked the competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty. Moreover, the record contradicts Henderson’s assertion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
