Robinson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01120-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-01120-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-13-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - M.R.E. 103(d) - Section 41-29-113(c)(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-19-81 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, 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: 05-28-2010 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-0038 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Robert Robinson |
JAMES D. MINOR SR. |
|
|
| 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 - Defective indictment - M.R.E. 103(d) - Section 41-29-113(c)(4) - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-19-81 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Robert Robinson was convicted of four counts of possession of a controlled substance. Robinson was sentenced to the following: thirty years and to pay a $1,000,000 fine for Count I, possession of ecstasy or methylenedioxymethamphetamine; eight years and a $100,000 fine for Count II, possession of cocaine; three years and a $6,000 fine for Count III, illegal possession of marijuana; and one year and a $1,000 fine for Count IV, illegal possession of alprazolam, all as a habitual offender without eligibility for parole or probation. Robinson appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In 2009, Robinson received permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to proceed with a PCR motion in the circuit court. Robinson filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the circuit court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Robinson argues he was improperly charged under Count I for possession of ecstasy or MDMA. He asserts the language in his indictment referencing MDMA did not match the language of the statute that controls illegal possession of MDMA. Robinson admits that he failed to raise this issue either in his direct appeal or in his PCR motion but urges the Court to invoke the “plain-error doctrine” under M.R.E. 103(d). Robinson’s indictment specifically stated that he had violated section 41-29-113(c)(4), which is the applicable statute and subsection listing “3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)” as an illegal controlled substance. Because Robinson’s indictment explicitly referenced the statute under which he was convicted, it did not fail to include all material facts necessary to charge Robinson with the crime at hand. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Robinson argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object to the circuit court’s imposition of the maximum sentences for each count of which Robinson was convicted. Section 99-19-81 clearly states that a trial judge “shall” impose the maximum term of imprisonment detailed for each offense once a defendant has been deemed a habitual offender. While the statute is silent as to any imposition of fines, the circuit judge in this case assessed fines within the prescribed limits of each count’s governing statute. Because Robinson’s sentences of imprisonment and fines were proper, Robinson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegation is without merit. Robinson also argues his appellate counsel committed reversible error by failing to argue that the circuit court erred in allowing into evidence the drugs found during the officers’ search of Robinson’s trunk. Smell can be the basis for probable cause with respect to illegal drugs. Thus, the circuit court was correct in ruling that the search of the vehicle in the instant case was proper. As such, it was not reversible error for Robinson’s appellate counsel to fail to raise the issue on direct appeal. Robinson also references his counsel’s failure to seek final review from the Mississippi Supreme Court in the form of a motion for rehearing or writ of certiorari. He claims that failure to do so prevented him from pursuing habeas corpus relief in federal court. Failure to exhaust is not a jurisdictional or inflexible bar to the grant of federal habeas relief to a state prisoner. There are some cases in which it is appropriate for an appellate court to address the merits of a habeas corpus petition notwithstanding the lack of complete exhaustion of state-court remedies. Although there is a strong presumption in favor of requiring the prisoner to pursue his available state remedies, his failure to do so is not an absolute bar to appellate consideration of his claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
