Lawson v. State
Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01561-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Factual basis of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel 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: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2003-0049-CV1 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | William P. Lawson |
PRO SE |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
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 - Factual basis of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
Summary of the Facts: | William Lawson pled guilty to felony D.U.I., third offense, and was sentenced to fifteen years, followed by five years of post-release supervision. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Factual basis of plea Lawson argues that the record does not reflect a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. By pleading guilty, he waived the requirement that he be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by competent evidence. In addition, Lawson stated that he agreed with the prosecutor’s rendition of the facts. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Lawson argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his guilty plea was based on the threat of his attorney that if Lawson did not accept the plea bargain, the State would charge him as an habitual offender. At Lawson's plea hearing, he testified that he had not been threatened or intimidated into entering his plea. Therefore, his sworn testimony at his plea hearing contradicts his assertion in his motion for post-conviction relief. In addition, his attorney properly informed him that if he did not accept the plea bargain, the State would charge him as an habitual offender. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court