Partain v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-00896-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00896-COA ; 2010-CT-00896-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-23-2011
Opinion Author: Irving, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - URCCC 6.05 - Fact finding
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, 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: 04-19-2010
Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: CV2009-0253CD

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Richard Partain




PRO SE



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • 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: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - URCCC 6.05 - Fact finding

    Summary of the Facts: Richard Partain pled guilty to manslaughter by culpable negligence. He was sentenced to twenty years, with fifteen years to serve, five years suspended, and five years of post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Partain argues that his guilty plea was involuntary, because he was not informed of the elements of the charge against him or the consequences of his guilty plea and his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. When determining whether a plea is voluntary, an appellate court considers whether the trial court advised the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. A prosecutor’s on-the-record statement of the elements of the crime charged sufficiently informs a defendant of the elements of the crime. Here, the prosecutor’s on-the-record statement at the plea hearing, which was made in front of both Partain and his attorney, contained all of the statutory elements of manslaughter by culpable negligence, which are “an unlawful killing by the culpable negligence of another.” Partain also argues that the circuit court failed to inform him of the consequences of his guilty plea. However, Partain’s allegation is not supported by the record. The transcript from the plea hearing shows that Partain understood the consequences of his guilty plea. Partain argues that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. However, Partain has presented no evidence that his plea was coerced. Furthermore, during his plea hearing, Partain stated under oath that he had not been threatened or coerced into pleading guilty. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Partain argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorneys failed to secure a preliminary hearing, to schedule a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, and to investigate his case adequately. Based on the record, there is no evidence that Partain’s court-appointed counsel attempted to secure a preliminary hearing. Partain’s retained attorney requested a preliminary hearing in conjunction with a writ of habeas corpus. However, at the time the attorney filed the writ, Partain had already been indicted by a grand jury. Under URCCC 6.05, a defendant who has been indicted by a grand jury shall not be entitled to a preliminary hearing. Furthermore, Partain’s valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are incident to trial, including a preliminary hearing. Partain further argues that the attorney was deficient for failing to schedule a hearing on his motion to suppress evidence of a blood test. Partain waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of the blood specimen when he pleaded guilty. Consequently, he cannot challenge the effectiveness of his counsel for failing to schedule a hearing on the motion to suppress the blood specimen. With regard to investigating his case, counsel’s failure to investigate, without more, does not constitute ineffectiveness. Issue 3: Fact finding Partain argues that the circuit court erred when it found that the State’s offer of proof did not include proof of the blood test. Partain pleaded guilty to manslaughter by culpable negligence rather than to causing death while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor that impaired his ability to operate the vehicle. While intoxication may be considered in cases involving manslaughter by culpable negligence, intoxication, within itself, is not the ultimate question in a culpable-negligence suit. Presumably, the circuit court intended to point out that a blood test proving intoxication was not required for Partain to be found guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence. This issue is without merit.


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