Williams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00333-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-14-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Jurisdiction - Validity of plea - URCCC 8.04(A)(3) - Ineffective assistance of counsel
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: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 01-29-2010
Appealed from: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Kathy King Jackson
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 2010-00,004(2)
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Troy Anthony Williams




 JEANINE M. CARAFELLO M. JUDITH BARNETT



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  
    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 - Jurisdiction - Validity of plea - URCCC 8.04(A)(3) - Ineffective assistance of counsel
    Summary of the Facts: Troy Williams pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery. He was sentenced to two twenty-year sentences, with ten years of each suspended. Williams filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Jurisdiction Williams argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because there was no proof that the acts of sexual battery occurred in Jackson County. According to Williams, he and his family, including the victim, lived in Pennsylvania from 2001 to 2003. There is sufficient evidence that the acts occurred in Jackson County. During Williams’s plea colloquy, he stated under oath that the acts occurred between 2002 and 2004 in Jackson County. Williams’s sworn statements in open court comport with the indictment. Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. Issue 2: Validity of plea Williams argues that his guilty plea was invalid because the circuit court failed to make a determination that a sufficient factual basis existed for his plea, to inform him of the elements of the charges against him, and to accept his guilty plea and adjudicate him guilty. URCCC 8.04(A)(3) provides that before the circuit court may accept a plea of guilty, the court must determine that the plea is voluntarily and intelligently made and that there is a factual basis for the plea. At the plea hearing, the State explained that if the case went to trial, it would put forth “evidence, including the child’s testimony, as well as other corroborating evidence, that in fact there was digital penetration and that he did in fact insert his penis as well.” Furthermore, Williams admitted under oath that he had “touched [his] stepdaughter in an inappropriate way on her body.” Thus, there was a sufficient factual basis for Williams’s plea. A plea is voluntary if the defendant knows what the elements are of the charge against him, including an understanding of the charge and its relation to him, what effect the plea will have, and what the possible sentence might be because of his plea. The circuit court asked Williams whether he understood the nature of the charges and whether he had had an opportunity to discuss them with his attorney. Williams answered in the affirmative. Then, the circuit court read Williams’s indictment, which listed the elements of sexual battery. Based on a review of the plea colloquy, it is clear that Williams understood the nature and the elements of the charge of sexual battery, the possible sentence, and the constitutional rights that he was waiving by pleading guilty. Williams asserts that his guilty plea is invalid because the circuit court failed to accept his guilty plea and adjudicate him guilty. It is clear from the record that the circuit court accepted Williams’s guilty plea and adjudicated him guilty. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him of the elements of sexual battery, to inform him that the State lacked sufficient evidence to prove that he had committed sexual battery, and to keep him informed regarding the status of his case. Williams has failed to produce any evidence, other than his own affidavit, in support of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, during his plea colloquy, Williams stated under oath that he was fully satisfied with his attorney’s services.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court