Yates v. State
| Docket Number: | 2004-CP-02067-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2005 Opinion Author: Irving, J. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Manslaughter by culpable negligence & DUI death - Double jeopardy - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Bridges, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-17-2004 Appealed from: Winston County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2004-087-CV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Davis Yates |
JAMES DAVIS YATES (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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: | Manslaughter by culpable negligence & DUI death - Double jeopardy - Defective indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Yates pled guilty to manslaughter by culpable negligence and D.U.I. death. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years, with five years suspended and five years of probation and twenty years. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy Yates argues that the multiple counts charged in his indictment improperly subjected him to double jeopardy. Since the aggravated D.U.I. charge was remanded to file, Yates suffered no possible harm from its inclusion on the indictment. As for the D.U.I. death and manslaughter, Yates’s argument would have merit only if both of these charges related to the same victim and incident. Since two people were killed as a result of Yates’ drunk driving, it was proper for the State to indict him on two counts: one for each victim killed. Issue 2: Defective indictment Yates argues that his manslaughter conviction should be overturned because his indictment contained the words “against the peace and dignity of the State” after each count, instead of using the language only at the conclusion of the indictment. An indictment is not defective for containing the statutory language after each count of an indictment. Issue 3: Voluntariness of plea Yates argues that his plea was not voluntary. A plea is voluntary when the defendant is advised concerning the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the plea. The record shows that the court clearly informed Yates of the constitutional rights he was giving up, and made sure that he knew he was waiving those rights. The court informed Yates of the minimum and maximum sentences possible on each count Yates was pleading to, as well as the fact that the court could impose any sentence in those ranges. In fact, Yates specifically testified that his plea was entered voluntarily. Therefore, the decision of the lower court to accept the plea was not clearly erroneous. Issue 4: Illegal sentence Yates argues that his sentence is illegal because he was effectively sentenced to thirty years: twenty to serve, plus five suspended, and five years of probation assigned by the court. In Mississippi, probation is not equivalent with time to serve. If Yates violates the conditions of his probation, he will serve the additional five suspended years, but no more than that, for a total of twenty-five years: the statutory maximum. Yates also argues that he was denied due process of law because the court did not enter separate judgments on each count it ruled upon. Yates confuses a verdict with that of a judgment order. Nothing in section 99-7-2 requires that each count be sentenced in a separate judgment. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Yates argues that his counsel was ineffective in pursuing his defense. Yates’ attorneys testified that they had fully advised him of his rights, and of the likelihood of successfully defending his case if he went to trial. They testified that they had fully explained to him the possible sentences that he could receive, and they testified that Yates appeared to understand completely what they were telling him. The record shows that the service provided by Yates’s attorneys was not deficient in any way. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
