Hills v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00376-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00376-COA ; 2011-CT-00376-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Habitual offender status - URCCC 11.03(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-22-2011 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: David H. Strong Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 10-181-PCS |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rodney Hills a/k/a Rodney Tirrel Hills a/k/a Rodney Terrell Hills |
PRO SE |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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 - Habitual offender status - URCCC 11.03(1) - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rodney Hills pled guilty to the sale of cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. On Count I, the sale of cocaine within 1,500 feet of a church, Hills was sentenced to sixteen years On Count II, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, he was sentenced to twenty years with sixteen years to serve and four years of post-release supervision. Hills was sentenced as a habitual offender under section 99-19-81, and his sentence was enhanced under section 41-29-142. Hills filed a post-conviction relief motion which was dismissed with prejudice. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Habitual offender status Hills argues he received an illegal sentence as a habitual offender because the indictment did not include the judgment dates of his prior felonies as required by URCCC 11.03(1). While the indictment did not specifically use the phrase “date of judgment,” it did include the dates Hills pleaded guilty to each prior crime, the nature of the crimes, the cause numbers, the sentencing dates, the length of each sentence, and the location in the minute books where each sentence was recorded. This information was more than sufficient to put Hills on notice of the prior crimes used to charge him as a habitual offender. Further, Hills stated under oath that he understood he was pleading guilty as a habitual offender under a plea agreement. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Hills argues his attorney was ineffective for failing to object to the missing judgment dates in the indictment. Not only was Hills’s indictment sufficient to notify him of the prior convictions used to enhance his sentence, Hills has not shown how the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had his attorney objected to the indictment. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
