Thomas v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00054-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-21-2011 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Exhibits Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-15-2010 Appealed from: Panola County Circuit Court Judge: James McClure, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: CV2009-142MP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Christopher Thomas |
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 - Exhibits |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2005, Christopher Thomas pled guilty to possession of cocaine. The circuit court withheld adjudication of Thomas’s guilt if he successfully completed certain conditions for five years. Thomas was then placed in the drug court program. In 2008, the State filed a petition for adjudication of guilt and sentencing because Thomas had violated the non-adjudication order by failing to comply with the terms of the drug court program. Specifically, in December 2007, he committed the crime of possession of approximately nine grams of cocaine. The circuit court sentenced Thomas to serve eight years. Thomas filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of guilty plea Before the circuit court, Thomas argued that his trial counsel failed to inform him that he would receive the maximum sentence of eight years for violating the order of the drug court, but now he argues that the circuit court failed to explain the terms of the recommendation for drug court before he pleaded guilty. A plea is voluntarily and intelligently given if the trial court advises the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. At Thomas’s initial guilty plea hearing in 2007, Thomas denied being coerced or promised anything of value to plead guilty. The judge clearly explained that if Thomas were convicted for the crime charged, the minimum and maximum sentences were not less than two and no more than eight years’ imprisonment. Further, Thomas signed a petition to enter a guilty plea stating that the maximum sentence for the crime charged was eight years’ imprisonment. The transcript of Thomas’s sentencing hearing in March 2007 shows he was fully informed and aware of what was involved in the drug court program, and he accepted its terms and obligations. According to the record, the circuit court made clear to Thomas that he could receive a maximum of eight years’ imprisonment for the charge if he was adjudicated guilty, whether through a guilty plea or violation of the drug court program. There is no indication in the record that Thomas was misinformed about the implications of his guilty plea or agreement to enter the drug court program. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Thomas argues his trial counsel was ineffective, because his counsel failed to address his motion to dismiss and motion for a speedy trial violation during his plea hearing. However, this is simply not the case. Thomas also contends that his counsel deceived him into believing that his best option was a guilty plea and misinformed him about the terms of the recommendation and his possible sentence if he violated the drug court program. There is no merit to Thomas’s contentions. During his plea hearing, Thomas stated that he was satisfied with his attorney’s performance. He presents no evidence other than his own sworn motion for post-conviction relief to support his claims. Moreover, it was not ineffective assistance for defense counsel to recommend to Thomas that he plead guilty. Thomas was fully informed by his trial counsel of his options and their effects. Although Thomas did state at his revocation hearing that he had no longer wanted to participate in drug court once he was in the program, Thomas’s counsel properly informed him that if that were the case, he would be sentenced to prison since he had pleaded guilty. Issue 3: Exhibits Thomas argues that the circuit court improperly dismissed his motion for lack of exhibits. It is unclear what Thomas is arguing in this issue. The circuit court did not dismiss Thomas’s motion for lack of exhibits; however, it did find no merit to his ineffective-assistance claim because Thomas did not attach any affidavits in support of his motion. This issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
