Preuett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-01202-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-01202-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-10-2004 Opinion Author: Bridges, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2003 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Jess H. Dickinson Disposition: POST CONVICTION RELIEF - DENIED District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: CI02-0023 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tommy Preuett |
THOMAS E. PAYNE |
||
| 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tommy Preuett pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to twenty years. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Preuett argues that his plea was involuntarily entered, because he believed he would only receive a five year sentence. The lower court asked Preuett whether he understood that his sentence would be between one year and twenty years and Preuett responded that he understood. Preuett stated that no one, including his counsel, promised him anything to induce his guilty plea. Therefore, his plea was voluntary. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Preuett argues that his counsel was ineffective due to his counsel's alleged representation that Preuett would receive a reduced five- year sentence by pleading guilty and by failing to object to the State's recommendation of the maximum sentence on the pre-sentence report. The court questioned Preuett on the standard "laundry list" of questions prior to sentencing. Preuett also argues that his counsel failed to produce reports that would have supported Preuett's version of the facts. Because there is a lack of evidence in the record that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome, Preuett has failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
