Parker v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-01882-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-01882-COA ; 2010-CT-01882-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-30-2011
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Plea bargain - Newly discovered evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-21-2010
Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 20,257

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Jerry Tyrone Parker




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

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 - Plea bargain - Newly discovered evidence

Summary of the Facts: Jerry Parker pled guilty to one count of the sale of methamphetamine within 1,500 feet of a church and one count of conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. Parker was sentenced to twenty years on Count I with one day to serve and nineteen years and 364 days suspended. He was sentenced to twenty years on Count II. Parker was also ordered to serve five years of post-release supervision on Count I. Parker filed a motion in the circuit court to withdraw his guilty pleas. The court dismissed the motion, and Parker appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Parker argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to investigate his case thoroughly and that he was misinformed when he entered his pleas since his attorney told him that he had to enter the pleas because of the circuit judge’s threats. Further, he argues that his attorney failed to object when the circuit judge threatened and coerced him into entering the pleas. At Parker’s plea hearing, the circuit judge specifically asked Parker if he was entering his guilty pleas freely and voluntarily. Parker responded, “[y]es, sir.” The circuit judge then gave Parker one last opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas and proceed to trial; Parker declined. At no point did Parker indicate that he was unsatisfied with his attorney’s performance. In fact, he indicated several times that he was satisfied with the advice and assistance his attorney had provided. His sentence was clearly less than the maximum he could have received had he gone to trial. In addition, besides simply stating that he would have gone to trial had he been properly informed, Parker did not provide any specific evidence to show that he would have insisted on going to trial and would not have entered his guilty pleas. Issue 2: Plea bargain Parker argues that the circuit judge used coercion and threats to force Parker into entering his guilty pleas. The record shows that the circuit judge advised Parker of the maximum sentences and fines for each count. He then stated that the plea recommendation by the State was not binding on the circuit court and that Parker could be sentenced to the maximum time, but at no point did the circuit judge indicate that Parker would receive the maximum sentences if he refused to enter his guilty pleas. There is no evidence in the record that the circuit judge acted improperly or participated in the plea-bargain process. Issue 3: Newly discovered evidence Parker argues that the affidavit of his co-defendant constitutes newly discovered evidence. Although the affidavit that Parker submitted with his original motion to withdraw his guilty plea is dated almost a year after Parker had entered his guilty pleas, it is not newly discovered evidence. In his brief, Parker states that evidence and information that the co-defendant could have provided was available when the police originally arrested them. Clearly this evidence was available to Parker at the time he entered his guilty pleas; thus, it cannot qualify as newly discovered evidence.


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