Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00830-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00830-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-16-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-39-9(1)(e) - Right to speedy trial - Vindictive prosecution - Due process rights Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2010 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CV10-060(PF)(L) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Dimera Smith |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Section 99-39-9(1)(e) - Right to speedy trial - Vindictive prosecution - Due process rights |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dimera Smith pled guilty to one count of the possession of cocaine with the intent to sell and two counts of the sale of cocaine. For count one, Smith was sentenced to thirty years, with ten years suspended, followed by five years of post-release supervision. For count two, Smith was sentenced to thirty years, with ten years suspended. For count three, Smith was sentenced to thirty years, with all thirty years suspended. Smith filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Smith argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed: to investigate his case, to inquire about the delay in the filing of the charges against him thereby invoking his right to a speedy trial, to further pursue his previously filed pro se motion to obtain the grand-jury transcript, and to contest the trial court’s previous denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly illegal search and seizure. A review of the record shows that during his plea hearing, upon being questioned by the trial court regarding whether he was satisfied with the legal services and advice of his attorney, as well as whether he felt he had been adequately represented, Smith responded, under oath, that he was satisfied. The record further reveals that Smith admitted under oath that he committed all of the offenses charged. Moreover, Smith failed to attach any affidavits other than his own in support of the allegations set forth in his PCR motion as required by section 99-39-9(1)(e). Thus, this issue lacks merit. Issue 2: Right to speedy trial Smith argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. However, a valid guilty plea admits all elements of a formal charge and operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects contained in the indictment or information against the defendant. Issue 3: Vindictive prosecution Smith argues that he was the victim of vindictive prosecution. Smith did not raise this argument at the plea hearing; therefore, it is procedurally barred on appeal. In addition, a factual basis clearly existed for all of the offenses charged. Issue 4: Due process rights Smith argues that the trial court erred by allowing the State to use an alleged drug-addict and alleged prostitute as the confidential informant for the two sale charges. Additionally, Smith claims that he was entrapped by the State in the sale cases. Smith admitted under oath that he was guilty of all three charges against him. Further, the time to assert an entrapment defense would have been at the trial on the merits of the charges, not in his PCR motion. The record shows that Smith entered his guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily under oath; and in so doing, Smith waived any defense he might have had to the charges against him, including the defense of entrapment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
