Troupe v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CP-02432-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-28-2006 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Amendment of indictment - URCCC 7.09 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-16-2004 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS DISMISSED. District Attorney: FORREST ALLGOOD Case Number: 2002-0156-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tawain Demetress Troupe |
TAWAIN DEMETRESS TROUPE (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Amendment of indictment - URCCC 7.09 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tawain Troupe entered a guilty plea to the possession of cocaine. The State filed a motion to amend the indictment to alleged habitual offender status. Relief was granted and as a habitual offender, Troupe was sentenced to eight years. Troupe filed a motion to vacate and set aside the habitual offender sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. Troupe appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Troupe argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to inform him that the trial court was going to amend his indictment to include the habitual offender charge. URCCC 7.09 states that an indictment may be amended to charge the defendant as a habitual offender only if the defendant is afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and is not unfairly surprised. If URCCC 7.09 was not violated, there is no basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the circuit court would have proper jurisdiction over the issue. URCCC 7.09 does not require the defendant to know whether the trial court will indict him as a habitual offender. Rather, URCCC 7.09 requires that the defendant be afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and that the defendant not be surprised with the habitual offender amendment. In his petition to enter a guilty plea, Troupe initialed the plea where it indicated that he understood he would be sentenced as a habitual offender. Additionally, the petitioner initialed the portion of the petition which advises the defendant of the minimum and maximum sentences he could receive if he pled guilty. Therefore, the petitioner can not, now, argue that he was denied an opportunity to present a defense or that he was unfairly surprised when he was sentenced under the habitual offender statute. The circuit court clearly had jurisdiction over the charge under URCCC 7.09. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
