Dockens v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-00352-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Nature of charges - Voluntariness of plea - Plea agreement - Due process - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-07-2003 Appealed from: Chickasaw County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: H-2001-69 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Roosevelt Dockens, Jr. |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Nature of charges - Voluntariness of plea - Plea agreement - Due process - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roosevelt Dockens, Jr. pled guilty to two charges of grand larceny and one charge of possession of cocaine. He was sentenced to five years, with three years suspended and two years to serve, on each of the grand larceny charges and to eight years on the possession of cocaine charge. Dockens petitioned the court for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Nature of charges Dockens argues that the court failed to inform him of the true charges he faced and the minimum sentences for the charges. Both the indictment, which charged Dockens, and the petition to enter a plea of guilty filed by Dockens expressed that two years was the minimum sentence for possession of cocaine. His petition to enter a plea of guilty on the possession of cocaine charge stated he was entering a plea of guilty to "possession of a controlled substance." His petition to enter a plea of guilty on the two counts of grand larceny stated that he was pleading to the charges of "grand larceny 2 counts." Dockens' plea petitions informed him of the minimum sentences for the charges he faced. Therefore, his claims are without merit. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Dockens argues that his plea petitions were involuntary because he was led to believe his sentences would run concurrently. A plea is considered voluntary if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge and the consequences of the entry of the plea. The record does not support Dockens' claim that he expected to serve only eight years. Each of Dockens' plea petitions recited that the recommended sentence would be eighteen years with six years suspended and twelve to serve. Dockens indicated that he understood the maximum penalty the court could impose on him was eighteen years. Based on the record, Dockens entered his pleas knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Issue 3: Plea agreement Dockens argues that the court erred by failing to honor the plea bargain agreement. If the judge informs the defendant that the judge does not have to accept the recommendation, the judge is not in error for failing to follow the recommendation. Here, the judge informed Dockens that he did not have to accept the recommendation and he could sentence him to the maximum or minimum sentence. In addition, the judge did follow the plea agreement. Issue 4: Due process Dockens argues he was denied due process, because the judge did not rule on whether the court had violated Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 8.04 and because the judge should have disqualified himself due to an unfair ruling. The court committed no error in accepting Dockens' pleas and the basis of the plea bargain was effectuated. In addition, nothing in the record suggests the judge had any reason to disqualify himself and the reason Dockens suggests for disqualification is totally devoid of merit. Issue 5: Ineffective assistance of counsel Dockens argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel did not object when the court sentenced him to serve his three sentences consecutively. Dockens indicated that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation. In addition, he has failed to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
