Lawson v. State


<- Return to Search Results


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