Dockery v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CP-00643-COA
Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00643-COA ; 2011-CT-00643-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-21-2012
Opinion Author: Ishee, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ - Time bar - Sufficiency of indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Factual basis of plea - Mental fitness - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Carlton, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., concurs in part and in the result without separate written opinion
Concurs in Result Only: Roberts, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 04-05-2011
Appealed from: DeSoto County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert P. Chamberlin
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: CV2011-033RCD

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Mario Dockery




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Successive writ - Time bar - Sufficiency of indictment - URCCC 7.06 - Factual basis of plea - Mental fitness - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: Mario Dockery pled guilty to simple murder and was sentenced to life. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. A few weeks later, Dockery filed a second PCR motion which was also denied. He appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Procedural bar In his brief, Dockery admits his latest PCR motion was a successive writ and time barred pursuant to state law. Dockery claims his prior arguments on appeal prove he was deprived of fundamental constitutional rights which negate the three-year bar. However, all of Dockery’s claims are without merit. Issue 2: Sufficiency of indictment Dockery argues that since he was convicted of simple murder but indicted for capital murder, the indictment was insufficient because it failed to set forth the essential elements of the crime for which he was convicted. However, Dockery fails to state the elements he claims were missing from the indictment. In addition, because simple murder is a lesser-included offense of capital murder, the elements of simple murder were inherently included within the crime of capital murder as reflected in Dockery’s indictment. Pursuant to URCCC 7.06, if an indictment tracks the language of the crime charged, includes the essential fact, and fully informs the accused of the nature and cause of the charges, then the indictment is sufficient. Here, the elements of murder are included in the crime of capital murder and were so stated in the indictment. Issue 3: Validity of plea To determine whether the plea is voluntarily and intelligently given, the trial court must advise the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. Dockery argues that the circuit court did not have a factual basis to accept his plea of guilty. The transcript of Dockery’s plea hearing clearly shows the circuit judge fully questioned Dockery on his understanding of the charges against him and his knowledge of the consequences of pleading guilty. Dockery answered that he was aware of the charges of capital murder and attempted robbery brought against him and that he was aware of the reduced charge of simple murder resulting from his plea bargain. Dockery also argues that he is mentally incapable of legally entering a guilty plea. The record indicates Dockery’s mental fitness was brought to the attention of the circuit court, and the court ordered the performance of a mental evaluation for Dockery at Whitfield. The psychologist stated he could not opine as to Dockery’s understanding of his right not to incriminate himself. However, at the plea hearing, the circuit judge specifically addressed Dockery’s potential mental incapacitation. He questioned Dockery as to his being “slow” and asked Dockery in numerous different lines of questioning if he understood the events taking place. The circuit court complied with the requirements of the law by having Dockery mentally evaluated and exploring Dockery’s claim of mental incapacitation through a mental evaluation and open-court questioning. Because evidence in the record supports the circuit court’s conclusion that Dockery was fit to enter a plea of guilty, there is no error. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Dockery argues that his counsel was ineffective in assisting him with his decision to plead guilty to simple murder. But Dockery admits he understood if convicted of capital murder by a jury, he would have faced the death penalty and, therefore, pleading guilty to simple murder eliminated the possibility of the death penalty. Also, the plea-hearing transcript contradicts Dockery’s allegation that his counsel was ineffective. Dockery was specifically asked if he was satisfied with the services rendered to him by his attorneys. He responded in the affirmative. When asked if he had any complaints at all about their representation of him, he answered that he did not. Additionally, and again with regard to Dockery’s plea bargain, the negotiation of a plea bargain to eliminate the death penalty and allow Dockery the possibility of one day leaving prison cannot be considered ineffective.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court