Green v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CP-00899-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00899-COA ; 2010-CT-00899-SCT
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-11-2011
Opinion Author: Presiding Judge Irving
Holding: Affirmed
Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Due process - URCCC 8.04(A)(4) - Validity of guilty plea - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-79 - Ineffective assistance of counsel
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: 05-18-2010
Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court
Judge: James Chaney, Jr.
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 10,0050-CI
  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: William Lee Green




 PRO SE



  
Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR.  
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 - Due process - URCCC 8.04(A)(4) - Validity of guilty plea - Illegal sentence - Section 97-3-79 - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Summary of the Facts: William Green pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to thirty-five years. Green filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. Green appeals.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Due process Green argues that his due process rights were violated because the circuit court failed to inform him of his right to a direct appeal of his sentence. However, our law has never required a trial judge to inform a criminal defendant about the right to appeal directly the sentence received based on a guilty plea. The transcript from the plea hearing shows that the circuit court addressed whether Green was competent, advised him of the nature and consequences of his plea, informed him of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and determined that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently given. Thus, the circuit court complied with the requirements of URCCC 8.04(A)(4). Issue 2: Validity of guilty plea Green argues that his guilty plea is invalid because he never admitted to the elements of armed robbery. However, the transcript from the plea hearing completely belies Green’s argument. Green was made aware of the elements of armed robbery and admitted that he had committed armed robbery. Issue 3: Illegal sentence Green argues that his thirty-five-year sentence is illegal because it exceeds his life expectancy. Because Green pled guilty rather than being convicted by a jury, the circuit court was required under section 97-3-79 to sentence him to a term of imprisonment of at least three years but less than life. At the sentencing hearing, the circuit court advised Green that it had consulted the United States Labor Tables for Life Expectancy, which estimated Green’s life expectancy at 47.1 years. Additionally, the circuit court consulted actuarial tables and workers’ compensation tables, which estimated Green’s life expectancy at 42.9 and 51 years, respectively. Green’s thirty-five-year sentence is less than each of the life expectancies considered by the circuit court; therefore, his sentence does not amount to a life sentence and is not illegal. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Green argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object when the circuit court accepted Green’s plea even though Green had not admitted the elements of armed robbery and had not been advised of his right to appeal his sentence. Additionally, Green contends that his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to Green’s sentence. Since these claims are without merit, Green’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.


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