Pegues v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00744-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Venue - URCCC 7.06(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-22-2010 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: L10-005 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Charles E. Pegues a/k/a Ducky |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. | ||
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 - Time bar - Venue - URCCC 7.06(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Charles Pegues pled guilty to possession of cocaine. Five years later, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief because his indictment failed to charge it was being brought in Lafayette County. The court denied the motion, and Pegues appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Time bar Pegues did not file his motion until almost five years after his guilty plea. Errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to a legal sentence, may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prevent their consideration. Though Pegues argued he received an illegal sentence, this is not so. As a repeat drug offender charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, Pegues potentially faced sixty years’ imprisonment. But his attorney negotiated the distribution-related charge down to simple possession, and the sixteen-year sentence is within the statutory maximum for this lesser crime. Generally, a claim alleging a defective indictment falls under the three-year statute of limitations. But venue is a constitutional right. Issue 2: Venue Pegues’s indictment indeed failed to state the county in which the charge was being brought, as required by URCCC 7.06(4). But, Pegues’s failure to object prior to trial waived any challenge to this venue-based defect. The distinct venue defect here is apparent on the face of the indictment since the charging document does not cite where the drug crime occurred. Such facially apparent defects differ from situations where the indictment contains adequate allegations, but the impropriety of venue only becomes apparent at the close of the government’s case. In the latter instance, a defendant may address the error by objecting at that time, and thus preserve the issue for appellate review. In light of the obvious, facially apparent defect in this case, the exception to waiver does not apply. Even though a facially apparent venue defect in an indictment may be waived by failing to object prior to trial, in Mississippi, the State still must prove venue. Before accepting Pegues’s guilty plea, the circuit court had to determine a factual basis existed for Pegues’s guilt. This included determining facts existed to support venue in Lafayette County, or another county within the same judicial district. The State presented testimony from two Lafayette County Sheriff’s deputies. One deputy testified primarily about Pegues’s incriminating admission; the other established the cocaine possession occurred in Oxford, Lafayette County. Further, in his plea colloquy, Pegues admitted he possessed the cocaine and agreed with the factual basis read by the State. He also acknowledged he heard the evidence presented during the suppression hearing and that the officer’s testimony was substantially true. Therefore, Pegues knowingly pled guilty to a crime that occurred in Lafayette County. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Pegues argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the indictment prior to trial. Because the defect was facially apparent, Pegues’s counsel had to object to the indictment’s failure to state venue prior to trial, not during the State’s case. But had he done so, any victory would have likely been short-lived since the circuit judge had authority to amend the charging document to include “Lafayette County” without grand jury action. So, even assuming Pegues’s counsel was deficient, Pegues cannot show he was prejudiced by his counsel’s inaction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
