Moreno v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CT-01001-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01001-COA ; 2009-CP-01001-COA ; 2009-CT-01001-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-09-2012
Opinion Author: Lamar, J.
Holding: Court of Appeals vacated in part, affirmed in part; Circuit court affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Venue - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR
Writ of Certiorari: Granted
Appealed from Court of Appeals

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2009
Appealed from: Lamar County Circuit Court
Judge: Prentiss Harrell
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: 2008-202H

Note: The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision as it erroneously considered Moreno’s double-jeopardy and venue claims, which were raised for the first time on appeal and affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Arturo Aquirre Moreno




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND  

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 - Venue - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: In 2005, Arturo Moreno pled guilty to one count of DUI manslaughter and two counts of DUI mayhem. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for DUI manslaughter, with fifteen years suspended, and twenty-five years on each count of DUI mayhem, with twenty years suspended on each count, all to run consecutively. In 2006, Moreno filed his first petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Moreno’s first petition for post-conviction relief. In 2008, Moreno filed a second petition for post-conviction relief with the trial court. The trial court summarily dismissed Moreno’s petition, and Moreno did not appeal. In 2009, Moreno filed with the Supreme Court a motion for permission to proceed in the trial court on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court granted the motion and ordered the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Moreno’s claim. The trial court conducted the hearing solely on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied relief. Moreno appealed the trial court’s denial of his ineffective-assistance claim but also reasserted the venue and double-jeopardy claims that he had failed to appeal after the trial court denied his second petition for post-conviction relief in 2008. The Court of Appeals denied relief on the venue issue and also addressed Moreno’s other claims. Moreno then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court which the Court granted.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Court of Appeals erred in considering Moreno’s arguments of double jeopardy and improper venue. Moreno argues that he pleaded guilty to DUI first offense and various traffic offenses on July 12, 2004, well before being indicted and pleading guilty to DUI manslaughter and mayhem. The Court of Appeals erred by saying that Moreno had set forth that argument in his first petition. While Moreno argued a double-jeopardy violation in his first petition, its basis was completely different. The Court of Appeals held that it could address venue, reasoning it is “jurisdictional” and can be raised for the first time on appeal. While it is true that venue in criminal cases may be raised for the first time on direct appeal, there is no caselaw where it was raised and considered for the first time on appeal from a trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. The trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief on Moreno’s ineffective assistance-of-counsel claim is affirmed.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court