Mitchell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01001-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-03-2004 Opinion Author: Southwick, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-18-2002 Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DENIED District Attorney: Laurence Y. Mellen Case Number: 8949 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Larry Mitchell |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Larry Mitchell was convicted in 1996 of burglary of an inhabited dwelling at night while armed with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mitchell appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered as to the burglary conviction and affirmed the remaining two charges. Mitchell filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. The Supreme Court granted Mitchell's request for leave to proceed in the trial court and ordered an evidentiary hearing. The circuit court found that Mitchell had received effective assistance and denied Mitchell's motion for post-conviction relief. Mitchell appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mitchell argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective during his hearing for post-conviction relief. Since this was a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, Mitchell had no constitutional guarantee to appointed counsel. Without a constitutional right to counsel, there can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel. Mitchell also argues that he was not given effective assistance during his 1996 trial and appeal. He argues that self-defense should have been raised as a defense during trial. However, to argue self-defense would have presented an inconsistent theory that potentially would have made both self-defense and the defense he raised unbelievable. The other issues Mitchell raised do not prove that, but for a deficiency on the part of his attorney, there would have been a different outcome. These issues included statements made during closing argument and failure to make objections. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
