Jennings v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02047-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-02047-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Due process - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to appeal - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-26-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2003-0100-CVI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Curtis L. Jennings |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Due process - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Right to appeal - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Curtis Jennings pled guilty to the offense of the sale of a controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Jennings argues that his plea was involuntary, because the court did not advise him of his right against self-incrimination nor did the court fully advise him of the consequences of his pleading guilty to the crime charged. The transcript of the guilty plea hearing disproves Jennings' claim. He testified that he had reviewed the plea detailing his constitutional rights with his attorney and that he understood that he was giving up his protection against self-incrimination, his right to a jury trial, his right to testify, and finally his right to appeal the guilty plea. Issue 2: Due process Jennings argues that he was denied due process of law because the indictment was not read to him before he pled guilty. The transcript of Jennings' plea hearing refutes this argument. Jennings testified that his attorney had advised him of the elements of the offense. The judge questioned Jennings about the facts set out in the indictment, and he affirmed the truth and veracity of those statements, admitting his guilt to each element of the offense. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jennings argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, because his attorney did not inform him of the specific elements of the charged offense and did not ensure that the court advise him of his rights regarding the possibility of an appeal. Jennings signed a guilty plea petition which clearly informed him that by pleading guilty he waived his right to an appeal and other specified rights. Jennings testified himself that the elements of the charge against him were fully explained. Issue 4: Right to appeal Jennings argues that the court erred in advising Jennings that he had no right to appeal. Jennings is contesting his conviction rather than the sentence imposed. Since he is challenging his conviction, the trial court was correct, and Jennings only possible relief was a motion for post-conviction relief. Issue 5: Evidentiary hearing Jennings argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Trial courts are authorized to dismiss post-conviction relief motions if there are no disputed or disputable facts. Jennings' petition for post-conviction relief failed to include any affidavits, other than his, or evidence to support his claims. Mere allegations in the pleadings, otherwise undisputed, are not sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
