Holmes v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01277-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-01277-COA ; 2010-CT-01277-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-06-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Habitual offender sentence 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: 07-29-2010 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: James L. Roberts Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: CV09-116(R)L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James L. Holmes |
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 - Voluntariness of plea - Habitual offender sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Holmes pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty years’ imprisonment. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Holmes argues that his counsel was ineffective because he was first appointed a “justice court” attorney, and his second attorney failed to communicate properly with him. Holmes offers only his statements that allege the deficiencies of his counsel. Such allegations are directly contradictory to his statements made under oath. Further, Holmes failed to show his counsel’s inaction prejudiced the result in this case. Holmes admitted the factual bases for the charges were correct. He testified under oath that he was satisfied with the legal services of his counsel and that he believed his attorney had properly advised him before he pleaded guilty. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Holmes argues that his guilty plea was involuntary. Because he failed to raise this issue in his original PCR motion, he is procedurally barred from raising this issue for the first time on appeal. In addition, Holmes’s claim fails on the merits. A plea is voluntary and intelligent when the defendant is informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. The record refutes Holmes’s claim that he did not voluntarily enter a guilty plea. Holmes testified he had not been forced or pressured in any way to plead guilty. The record of the plea hearing is clear that Holmes was informed of the charge against him and that he was aware of the consequences of entering his guilty plea. Issue 3: Habitual offender sentence Holmes argues that he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender because his status as a habitual offender violates double jeopardy, and his prior convictions were too remote to be used by the State. Habitual-offender status does not violate double jeopardy. Also, the habitual offender statute does not make reference to the time period in which a felony conviction occurs. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
