White v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2004-CP-01258-COA
Linked Case(s): 2004-CP-01258-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-14-2006
Opinion Author: Irving, J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Disproportionate sentence - Constructive possession
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-28-2004
Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court
Judge: Richard Smith
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
District Attorney: Joyce Ivy Chiles
Case Number: 2002-0191-M

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Lorenzo White a/k/a Shaq




LORENZO WHITE (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Disproportionate sentence - Constructive possession

Summary of the Facts: Lorenzo White pled guilty to possession of marihuana with intent to sell. White’s sentencing was continued for two years, pending successful completion of a two-year drug treatment and rehabilitation program. After White failed to complete the program, the court sentenced him to twenty-five years. White appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea White argues that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly given. A plea is voluntary when the defendant is advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. The transcript of the plea hearing shows that the trial court clearly informed White that he had the right to a trial by jury, the right to cross-examine witnesses against him, and the right against self-incrimination. The court made sure that White knew that he was waiving those and other constitutional rights by deciding to enter a guilty plea. White testified that he was guilty of the charged offense, and he was entering his plea voluntarily, free from any threats, coercion, or intimidation. White has failed to present any evidence showing that his guilty plea was not voluntarily and knowingly given. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel White argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is simply void of any evidence to support his contention. In fact, the record reflects that White was ably assisted by his counsel. Clearly, it was because of his counsel’s successful negotiations that White was able to initially receive a lenient sentence and eventually able to escape a possible life sentence. Furthermore, White’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is contradicted by the record. During the plea qualification hearing, White was asked by the court if he was satisfied with the way his attorney has handled his case, to which he answered, “yes, sir.” Issue 3: Disproportionate sentence White argues that his twenty-five year sentence is disproportionate to other first-time offenders convicted of the same offense in the jurisdiction in which he was convicted and in other jurisdictions throughout the state. White’s sentence was within the statutory dictates for the crime he committed. The trial court will not be held in error or to have abused its discretion if the sentence imposed is within the limits fixed by statute. Issue 4: Constructive possession White argues that he was never found to be in possession of marihuana, so, therefore, he should have never been indicted for possession of marihuana with intent to sell. However, White admitted in open court that he was guilty of the charged offense. A valid guilty plea admits all elements of a formal charge and operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects contained in an indictment or information against a defendant.


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