Pearson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01918-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-14-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive petition - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2003 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: L03-211 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tracy Lynn Pearson |
PRO SE
KENT E. SMITH |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Successive petition - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tracy Pearson pled guilty to the reduced charge of aggravated assault and possession of a handgun by a felon. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied. He filed a second motion for post-conviction relief, which was also denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Successive petition Pearson’s appeal of his first motion for post-conviction relief was not timely filed. His second motion for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed as a successive writ, since he has failed to show new evidence or intervening decisions for an exception to our successive writ prohibition. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Pearson argues that his plea was involuntary because he was confused about what was going on in the proceedings. This argument is inconsistent with his admissions at the sentencing hearings. Pearson admitted that he was not under the influence of alcohol, that he completely understood the nature of the proceedings, and that he had no physical or mental disabilities that would inhibit his understanding of the proceedings. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Pearson argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was induced to plead guilty because of a fear of a life sentence and because his attorney allowed Pearson to plead guilty to aggravated assault, for which he was never indicted. Pearson has presented no proof that his counsel was ineffective other than making statements in his brief that his counsel was ineffective. These claims do not sufficiently prove Pearson’s complaint of ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
