Moore v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02294-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right against self-incrimination Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ. Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-23-2003 Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court Judge: Vernon Cotten Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Mark Sheldon Duncan Case Number: 2000-CR-181-SC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Cameron D. Moore |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right against self-incrimination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cameron Moore pled guilty to the possession of precursor chemicals with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine and was sentenced to two concurrent terms of twelve years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Moore argues that his plea was involuntary, because the plea agreement failed to articulate the State's burden of proof and the burden was not announced in open court. Since Moore did not raise this issue at the sentencing hearing, he waived its consideration on a motion for post conviction relief. In addition, it is clear from the record that Moore was advised by the trial court regarding the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Moore argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel since his counsel failed to file a motion for discovery. Failure to file a motion for discovery is insufficient to substantiate an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Furthermore, the plea agreement that Moore signed specifically addressed the adequacy of his counsel and Moore offered no complaint. Issue 3: Right against self-incrimination Moore argues that the court erred in failing to specifically address his constitutional right against self-incrimination. A review of the plea transcript reveals that the trial court adequately addressed Moore's constitutional rights. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
