Vandergriff v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-01733-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Recusal of prosecuting attorney Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis and Ishee, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2004 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Sharion R. Aycock Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CV04-091(A)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Ray Vandergriff |
WILLIAM C. STENNETT |
||
| 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 - Recusal of prosecuting attorney |
| Summary of the Facts: | David Vandergriff pled guilty to the charge of armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty years, with ten suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. Vandergriff filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Vandergriff argues that his guilty plea was not entered in a knowing and voluntary manner. A plea is considered voluntary and intelligent if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the entry of the plea. Vandergriff, in open court, responded that his plea was free and voluntary, that no one had made threats or promises to him regarding his plea, that he was aware of the rights he was waiving, that he understood the charges against him, that he understood the minimum and maximum sentence of the charge to which he pled, and that he was satisfied with the legal advice and services of his attorney. Based on these responses, Vandergiff entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Vandergriff argues that his counsel was deficient because he failed to make a reasonable investigation into the facts of the case, failed to interview Vandergriff properly prior to recommending that he plead guilty, and failed to call key witnesses who would have changed the outcome of the proceedings. Vandergriff has not stated how additional investigation or interviewing of witnesses by his counsel would have changed his decision to plead guilty. At no point in his plea of guilty and sentencing did Vandergriff assert his innocence. He does not state what the testimony of these witnesses would have been, or how the testimony could possibly have changed his decision to plead guilty to the crime he admitted committing. At his plea hearing, Vandergriff affirmed that he was pleased with the representation of his attorney, and he further agreed that he had received no promises as to the sentence he may receive if he pled guilty. Vandergriff has not shown that the assistance of his counsel was ineffective because his counsel coerced him into entering a plea. Issue 3: Recusal of prosecuting attorney Vandergriff argues that the assistant district attorney should have been recused from Vandergriff’s case because he served as the defendant’s court appointed attorney prior to serving as assistant district attorney. The subsequent prosecution of a criminal defendant by an attorney who has previously gained confidential information from the accused relative to the charges against him is inherently incompatible with the right of a criminal defendant to receive a fair trial. Vandergriff submitted absolutely no evidence to support his allegation; the only evidence before the trial court was the affidavit of the assistant district attorney, which denied that any confidential information was communicated. Confidential information was not used in the prosecution of this case, and the attorney’s relationship with Vandergriff had no effect on the disposition of this case. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
