Garner v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CP-00468-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00468-SCT ; 2004-CP-00468-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2006 Opinion Author: Lee, P.J. Holding: REVERSED AND REMANDED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Defective indictment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Myers, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Southwick and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-22-2004 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR01-069 |
|
| Note: | The appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. The original opinion is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Emory Garner |
JAMES EMORY GARNER (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 - Defective indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. James Garner pled guilty in the Monroe County Circuit Court to two counts of armed robbery. Count one originated in Monroe County, while count two originated in Lee County. Garner was sentenced to twenty years on each count, to run concurrently with two previous, unrelated convictions. Garner filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Garner argues that his guilty plea should be vacated because he was not advised of the minimum sentence for his crime and he was improperly advised about his eligibility for parole. Automatic invalidation of a guilty plea where the defendant was not informed of the minimum penalty is no longer the rule in Mississippi. For reversal, Garner must show that he was misled, that the case was misrepresented to him, or that he expected to receive a lesser sentence. Nothing in the record indicates that any of these scenarios applies. The record indicates that Garner clearly understood the State would recommend a sentence of twenty years and the trial judge could sentence him to a term “reasonably less than life.” Garner's contention that the trial court erroneously informed him regarding parole is more problematic. While it is unclear what advice counsel gave to Garner, it is clear from the record that the information provided by the trial judge regarding parole was incorrect. Erroneous information concerning parole and sentencing at least entitles the petitioner to an evidentiary hearing on whether he relied on the erroneous information. Therefore, Garner is entitled to a hearing. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Garner argues that his attorney erroneously advised him regarding his eligibility for parole. Garner states that he would not have pled guilty but for the erroneous advice. If his attorney improperly advised him of his eligibility for parole, Garner is entitled to a hearing to investigate his claim that he would not have pled guilty but for the incorrect advice. Issue 3: Defective indictment Garner argues that the facts of the case do not support the indictment, since the State failed to allege essential elements regarding the weapon used during the crime. If an indictment reasonably provides the accused with actual notice and it complies with Rule 7.06 of the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules, it is sufficient to charge the defendant with the crime. There is no question that Garner received actual notice of the crime with which he was being charged. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
