Martin v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00401-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2011 Opinion Author: Irving, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Jurisdiction - Sufficiency of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-05-2010 Appealed from: Tate County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CV-2009-238BT |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | George Martin |
CHOKWE LUMUMBA
IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN |
||
| 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 - Sufficiency of indictment - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | George Martin pled guilty to burglary. Martin filed a first PCR petition, which was denied. The denial of that petition was affirmed on appeal. Martin later filed another PCR petition. The court denied the petition, and Martin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Martin argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because his indictment did not allege the specific crime on which the burglary was predicated. So long as a fair reading of the indictment, taken as a whole, clearly describes the nature and cause of the charge against the accused, the indictment is legally sufficient. Read the indictment as a whole, the indictment, Martin had sufficient notice of the elements of burglary. Furthermore, at the time that Martin entered his guilty plea, the prosecutor clearly stated that Martin broke and entered into the Tripletts’ home with the intent to commit larceny therein. Martin never expressed surprise at this statement or attempted to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial. Clearly, Martin understood the elements and nature of his burglary charge. Since the circuit court had jurisdiction to accept Martin’s guilty plea and his sentence is legal, the circuit court properly denied Martin’s PCR petition as a successive writ. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Martin argues that his attorney was ineffective for not objecting to the indictment. As the indictment was sufficient, there is no merit to this argument. Any additional arguments concerning the effectiveness of Martin’s counsel should have been brought in his first PCR petition; those arguments are now barred as a successive writ. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
