Brooks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01781-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2011 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Factual basis of plea - Double jeopardy 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: 10-15-2010 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: Richard Smith Case Number: 2010-0028-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cedric Brooks |
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Factual basis of plea - Double jeopardy |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric Brooks pled guilty to possession of marijuana while incarcerated. He was sentenced to three years to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving at the time. He was also ordered to pay all courts costs, a $300 lab fee, and $300 to Sunflower County in lieu of attorney’s fees. Brooks filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Brooks argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his plea hearing. Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), Brooks failed to demonstrate any reasons for his contention that his attorney was ineffective and failed to cite any part of the record to support that contention. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be pled with specificity, and affidavits to support the claim must also be attached and part of the record. Since the record and Brooks’s briefs are void of either, his argument fails. Issue 2: Factual basis Brooks argues that there was not a factual basis for the circuit judge to accept his guilty plea. When determining if there has been a sufficient factual basis to accept a guilty plea, the record as a whole must be viewed. Brooks entered a best-interest plea. Brooks answered in the affirmative when asked if he signed the plea petition and if all the statements and allegations in the plea petition were true. When asked by the circuit judge, Brooks had no complaints about the adequacy of his representation, and he did not indicate that the decision to enter the guilty plea was as a result of threats, force, or offers of reward. After answering in the affirmative to all the circuit judge’s questions, the State read the indictment to demonstrate what it was prepared to prove at trial. Brooks signed the plea petition, verbally acknowledged his signature, and he acknowledged that all the statements and allegations in the petition were true. He was then read the indictment and had the elements of the crime explained; he again answered in the affirmative that he was guilty. He made a statement that he was “not really in fact guilty because due to the circumstance, I am really tired and ready to get it behind me, really ready to get it behind me and go on with my life.” However, this statement does not negate the rest of the evidence presented to establish a factual basis to accept the guilty plea. Issue 3: Double jeopardy Brooks argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy because the rules violation report he received from the MDOC about the incident was dismissed; therefore, he could not be subject to punishment through the circuit court for the same crime. However, Brooks fails to cite to any case that supports his contention that the RVR, an administrative proceeding, invokes double-jeopardy concerns. Administrative proceedings do not invoke the double-jeopardy clause. The RVR and the subsequent appeals are administrative proceedings within the MDOC. Even if the double-jeopardy clause was properly applicable here, there is insufficient evidence to show that Brooks was acquitted on the merits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
