Grissom v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-00663-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-26-2011
Opinion Author: Lee, C.J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Sufficiency of evidence - Sufficiency of indictment - Section 97-3-19 - Section 99-17-20 - Venue - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-07-2010
Appealed from: Noxubee County Circuit Court
Judge: James T. Kitchens, Jr.
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 2010-0023

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Nicholas Grissom




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

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 - Evidentiary hearing - Sufficiency of evidence - Sufficiency of indictment - Section 97-3-19 - Section 99-17-20 - Venue - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Nicholas Grissom pled guilty to capital murder. He was sentenced to life without parole. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Grissom argues that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his motion for post-conviction relief without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The trial court may summarily dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief. The trial court reviewed the record and guilty plea and found that it was clear that Grissom was not entitled to the requested relief. The trial court properly dismissed the motion. Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence Grissom argues that the State failed to prove all elements of capital murder, specifically that he was guilty of robbery. During the plea colloquy, the State cited facts underlying the capital-murder charge, including the robbery, that it would offer to prove Grissom’s guilt in the case of a trial. A valid guilty plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. Issue 3: Sufficiency of indictment Grissom argues that the indictment was insufficient because although it stated that he was being charged under section 97-3-19, it failed to state which subsection. Even if Grissom’s indictment was defective for not including the subsection for capital murder, Grissom waived his rights to any technical or non-jurisdictional defects in his indictment by pleading guilty. Additionally, section 99-17-20 states that “[n]o person shall be tried for capital murder, or any other crime punishable by death,” unless the offense’s subsection is specifically cited in the indictment. Grissom was not convicted by a jury but rather, pleaded guilty.


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