Brooks v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01071-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CT-01071-SCT ; 2010-CP-01071-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-29-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Myers, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-15-2010 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 08-KR-0073 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lee Alexander Brooks |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Voluntariness of plea |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lee Brooks pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a dwelling house. Brooks was sentenced to serve twenty-five years for each count of burglary, with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court suspended five years of each sentence and placed Brooks on five years of post-release supervision. 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 his counsel was ineffective because counsel did not pursue Brooks’s alleged suppression issue; counsel requested to withdraw and failed to investigate his claims adequately; and counsel misinformed Brooks of his ineligibility for parole. The record indicates that an extensive motion to suppress evidence was filed on Brooks’s behalf. A hearing was held on the suppression motion. Thus, there is no merit to this contention. Brooks also claims that his appointed attorney requested to withdraw and did not adequately investigate Brooks’s claims. The circuit judge addressed the issue of counsel’s withdrawal from the case. The circuit judge explained to Brooks that his current counsel had filed an extensive pretrial motion on Brooks’s behalf, and the attorney had a good track record in the courtroom. The circuit judge did not allow Brooks to remove his second court appointed attorney without cause on the day of trial and to further delay proceedings as Brooks previously had done. There is no merit to this assignment of error. Brooks argues that he would not have pleaded guilty if his counsel had adequately informed him that he would not be eligible for parole. Brooks had the opportunity to confer with counsel, and he had a family member, his uncle, present during the conference on his plea bargain. Brooks has failed to show any specific evidence of how his counsel misinformed him regarding his eligibility for parole. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Brooks argues that his guilty plea was involuntary because he pleaded guilty out of fear of going to trial with unprepared counsel or without counsel, if Brooks chose to represent himself pro se. A plea is voluntary and intelligent when the defendant is informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. Brooks’s claim that he entered an involuntary plea on the basis of unprepared counsel is without merit. Brooks was represented by adequate counsel. Brooks was informed of the charges against him, as well as the minimum and maximum sentences each charge carried. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
