Willis v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-01257-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-19-2011
Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Factual basis - Habitual offender sentence - Section 99-19-81 - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-21-2010
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert Bailey
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 07-CV-010(B)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Lawrence F. Willis




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE MCCRORY  

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 - Factual basis - Habitual offender sentence - Section 99-19-81 - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: In 1984, Lawrence Willis was convicted of one charge for the sale of marijuana, and he was sentenced to serve five years of incarceration. Willis was subsequently convicted of possession of cocaine in 1985, and he received another five-year prison sentence. Finally, in 1992, Willis was convicted of the sale of cocaine, and he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. In 2004, Willis entered his guilty plea to one charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. The terms of the plea agreement permitted Willis to plead guilty to the charge as a habitual offender; however, by doing so, the State agreed not to seek sentencing under the enhancement statute. Additionally, the State agreed not to seek the maximum sentence under the habitual-offender statute; rather, the plea agreement provided that the circuit judge would have discretion to sentence Willis to a lesser term if he saw fit to do so. Willis was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty-five years. As a consequence of pleading guilty as a habitual offender, Willis became ineligible for probation, parole, earned-time or good-time credit, and any suspension or reduction of the sentence. Willis filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief which was dismissed. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Willis argues that his guilty plea was involuntary and that he only entered the guilty plea as part of an irresistible impulse to protect the passenger of his vehicle. The plea colloquy demonstrates that Willis’s guilty plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. A plea is considered voluntary and intelligent when the defendant knows the elements of the charge against him, understands the charge’s relation to him, what effect the plea will have, and what sentence the plea may bring. The record indicates that Willis not only entered his guilty plea upon his own free will, but he also understood the consequences that such a plea would compel. Issue 2: Factual basis Willis argues that the elements for possession of cocaine could not have been proven by the prosecution and outside of his own admission, there was no independent evidence which evinced his criminal culpability. An adequate factual basis for the plea may be formed by any record evidence before the court, including the defendant’s own admission of guilt. A plea of guilty waives any evidentiary issue. Willis’s indictment, his petition to enter a plea of guilty, and the language of the plea colloquy each provided the circuit court with a sufficient factual basis to accept the guilty plea. Issue 3: Habitual offender sentence Willis argues that the State failed to provide evidence at the sentencing hearing as to the prior convictions relied upon to classify him as a habitual offender under section 99-19-81. Apparently, Willis contends that he was improperly classified as a habitual offender because the State failed to prove, not that he was sentenced, but that he in fact served, one year or more for each of the prior felonies. Section 99-19-81 does not impose a requirement that the defendant must serve one or more years in prison for either of the previous felonies. To the contrary, the only requirement is that in order to be eligible for habitual-offender status, the offender must merely be sentenced to serve two separate terms of one or more years in prison. The habitual-offender attachment to Willis’s indictment clearly indicates that Willis has been previously convicted for three felony drug charges – two for sale and one for possession – and that he was sentenced to at least five years’ imprisonment with the MDOC for each conviction. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Willis’s sole argument that his counsel’s performance was ineffective rests entirely on whether his counsel should not have allowed him to enter a guilty plea in the absence of an independent evidence as to his criminal culpability. However, Willis submitted no affidavits in support of his contention. In fact, Willis does not even submit his own affidavit. Where a party offers only his affidavit, then his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit.


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