Chandler v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-02031-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-28-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Defective indictment - Right to speedy trial - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-03-2003 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DISMISSED District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2003-0003-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mario Chandler |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
|
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 - Right to speedy trial - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mario Chandler pled guilty to burglary. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Defective indictment Chandler argues that his indictment was defective because it did not contain the affidavit of the grand jury foreman. Not only has Chandler not shown that any prejudice resulted because the indictment did not contain the foreman’s affidavit, but this is a non-jurisdictional defect which is waived when the defendant enters a voluntary guilty plea. Issue 2: Right to speedy trial Chandler argues that he was denied a right to a speedy trial. Chandler’s plea of guilty operated to waive his right to a speedy trial. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Chandler argues that his lawyer was ineffective because she failed to investigate the facts of his case and to request discovery. Chandler never told the judge what additional discovery materials would have disclosed nor how such material would have affected his decision to plead guilty. It follows that he has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel that would have led to a different result. Chandler also testified under oath that his lawyer had explained everything in the petition to enter the plea of guilty. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
