Vaughn v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00176-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00176-COA ; 2011-CP-00176-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-10-2012 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Evidentiary hearing - Voluntariness of pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2011 Appealed from: Tunica County Circuit Court Judge: Charles E. Webster Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-0335 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Marcus Vaughn |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA L. BLOUNT |
|
|
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 - Evidentiary hearing - Voluntariness of pleas - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2008, Marcus Vaughn pled guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. For the manslaughter conviction, the circuit court sentenced him as a habitual offender to twenty years. The circuit court also sentenced him to ten years for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, with the sentence to run consecutively to his twenty-year sentence for manslaughter. In 2009, Vaughn filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Evidentiary hearing Vaughn argues that the circuit court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a petition for post-conviction relief are specific and conclusory. Here, the record shows that the circuit court analyzed Vaughn’s motion and all pertinent documents before ruling against his claim. It is evident from the circuit court’s detailed analysis that the court properly reviewed Vaughn’s case before denying his PCR motion. Issue 2: Voluntariness of pleas Vaughn argues his attorney misinformed him as to the amount of time he would ultimately serve in prison and, thus, he did not enter his guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. However, the record shows that Vaughn was aware of the maximum sentences he was facing on both charges against him. He was also aware that he was classified as a habitual offender regarding the manslaughter charge. The circuit court advised Vaughn prior to entering his plea that he would not be eligible for early release from his twenty-year sentence for manslaughter. Vaughn’s attorney never told him he would face a lesser sentence by pleading guilty. The actual time Vaughn faced in his sentencing was never disputed. Vaughn stated both in his plea petition and in open court that he understood the sentences being imposed upon him for both the crime of manslaughter and the crime of possession of a firearm by a felon. Issue 3: Ineffective assistance of counsel Vaughn argues that because his counsel allegedly misinformed him as to the possibility of early release on his sentences, he was denied effective assistance of counsel in entering his guilty pleas. Vaughn’s statements to the circuit court and his plea petition reflect an understanding of the consequences he faced in pleading guilty to manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a felon. As such, there is no merit to his argument that his counsel improperly explained his potential sentences for both charges. Even if he had been misinformed by his attorney as to a possible early release, the circuit court clearly outlined the ramifications of his pleas. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
