Sneed v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00326-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00326-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-27-2012 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Time bar - Successive writ Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-27-2011 Appealed from: Quitman County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-0062 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brian Sneed |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
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 - Time bar - Successive writ |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brian Sneed pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a business. He was sentenced to serve two consecutive seven-year terms as a habitual offender without eligibility for parole or probation. Sneed filed his first motion for post-conviction collateral relief on September 28, 2006. The circuit court denied the motion, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. Sneed filed a second motion for post-conviction collateral relief on May 9, 2009. The circuit court found that Sneed’s motion was procedurally time-barred and successive-writ barred. Sneed appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Sneed argues that his counsel advised Sneed that he was guilty of burglary simply because he possessed the stolen property. Sneed contends that this violated his fundamental right to competent counsel. Sneed raises this issue without sufficient proof of counsel’s deficiency. He offers merely his own assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel. The performance of Sneed’s counsel was not so deficient and prejudicial as to violate Sneed’s fundamental constitutional rights. As such, his current claim is procedurally barred. Sneed further argues that he is innocent of the two counts of burglary. However, he has failed to prove his actual innocence. The record is clear that Sneed testified under oath at his plea colloquy that he did, indeed, commit the crimes charged. Accordingly, this claim is also procedurally barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
