Hughes v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01406-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CP-01406-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-28-2003 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Benjamin F. Creekmore Case Number: L03-168 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Raymond Hughes |
PRO SE |
||
| 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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Hughes pled guilty to conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to five years with three years suspended and two years to serve, with three years post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Hughes argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate his case and failed to file motions to dismiss on the grounds of due process and speedy trial violations. Hughes signed a guilty plea petition which clearly informed him that, by pleading guilty, he waived his right to a speedy trial. The petition also indicated that Hughes was satisfied with the representation of his counsel. Therefore, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Hughes argues that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea because it was not voluntarily and intelligently entered. For a guilty plea to be accepted as voluntarily and intelligently entered, a defendant must be advised of and understand the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of his plea. Here, there is sufficient evidence in the record to find that Hughes' plea was voluntarily and intelligently entered. Hughes testified that he was guilty of conspiring with two others to commit the crime of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell or distribute. The record also shows that Hughes was informed of and said he understood the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty and the maximum and minimum sentences for his crime. Issue 3: Due process Hughes argues that his due process rights were violated in the revocation of his post-release supervision because he was denied a preliminary hearing and a final revocation hearing. The record indicates that Hughes signed a "waiver of notice of revocation hearing" in which he admitted that he understood the allegations and that he was prepared for a hearing on the allegations without any additional notice. Hughes was also given notice of the terms of his post-release supervision. A revocation hearing was held at which Hughes admitted that he violated the terms of his post-release supervision. Therefore, Hughes was not denied his due process rights in the revocation of his post-release supervision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
