Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-00230-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-00230-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-21-2006 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Successive petition - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Good time credits Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-22-2005 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 05-CV-002-LE-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Edward Earl Smith, Jr. |
PRO SE |
||
| 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 - Time bar - Successive petition - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Good time credits |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edward Smith, Jr. entered a guilty plea to manslaughter. He was sentenced to the maximum twenty-year sentence. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. Smith filed a second motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed as procedurally barred. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Smith filed his motion for post-conviction relief more than three years after the trial court accepted his plea of guilty and imposed the twenty-year sentence. Accordingly, his motion is untimely. In addition, Smith is procedurally barred from asserting his motion because it is successive. Smith argues that his second post-conviction relief motion is not procedurally barred because the United States Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), constitutes an intervening authority which would have affected the outcome of his case. However, the overwhelming authority appears to hold that Blakely does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. In addition, the Blakely decision could not affect the outcome of Smith’s conviction or sentence. Blakely has no application where the sentence is within the statutory limitation. Smith also argues that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to provide him with adequate information regarding the charge of manslaughter prior to his guilty plea. However, Smith never specifically states any particular element in the charge of manslaughter that would have changed his decision to plead guilty to manslaughter. Smith also argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent. A claim of an involuntary guilty plea does not surmount the procedural bar. Smith also takes issue with the loss of good time credits. Under section 47-5-138, the court may order forfeiture of good time credits upon a finding that the lawsuit is frivolous. The court below ruled that the present suit was frivolous. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
