Sheffield v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CA-00559-COA
Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00559-SCT ; 2002-CT-00559-SCT ; 2002-CT-00559-SCT ; 2002-CA-00559-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-28-2003
Opinion Author: Chandler, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Meaning of dwelling - Section 97-17-23 - Motion for reconsideration - M.R.C.P. 60 - M.R.C.P. 59(e)
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Bridges, Lee, Myers and Griffis, JJ.
Judge(s) Concurring Separately: King, P.J., joined Votes: Southwick, P.J., Thomas, Lee and Irving, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-20-2002
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
District Attorney: Bilbo Mitchell
Case Number: 01-CV-153(R)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Michael Sheffield




JAMES A. WILLIAMS



 

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 - Meaning of dwelling - Section 97-17-23 - Motion for reconsideration - M.R.C.P. 60 - M.R.C.P. 59(e)

Summary of the Facts: Michael Sheffield was found guilty of burglary of a dwelling and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. Sheffield appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Sheffield filed a request for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court which the Supreme Court granted. The trial court denied the motion, and Sheffield appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Sheffield argues that trial counsel's failure to challenge the “dwelling” element of burglary constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant has a meaningful opportunity to raise effectiveness of counsel where the defendant was represented by different counsel on appeal than at trial and the defendant fails to allege cause or actual prejudice for not raising the issue on direct appeal. Sheffield’s counsel at the trial court level and in his direct appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court were two different attorneys. Sheffield’s argument is procedurally barred because he had a meaningful opportunity on direct appeal to raise trial counsel's error of specifically failing to address the dwelling element. He was given an opportunity to assert the claim but decided against it. In addition, the house in question was a dwelling contained within the purview of section 97-17-23. A "dwelling" is defined as every building joined to, immediately connected with, or being part of the dwelling house. Here, the proof showed the house was temporarily unoccupied due to the fact that its owner was in a nursing home. The house was on the market to be sold as a dwelling, and there was clearly an intent by the owner that the house continue to function as a dwelling. The attorney stated that, in his opinion, the issues raised by Sheffield's pro se motion for post-conviction relief were frivolous and could not be ethically addressed. In this appeal, Sheffield also argues that he received ineffective assistance from his post-conviction relief counsel because he stated that the issues raised by Sheffield's pro se motion for post-conviction relief were frivolous and could not be ethically addressed. A defendant has no state or federal right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Where there is no constitutional right to counsel, there can be no deprivation of effective assistance. Sheffield also argues that if the Court finds that counsel was ineffective for failure to preserve the dwelling issue, then the State must extend the identical plea offer under the building burglary statute which it had offered to him previously. Sheffield is procedurally barred from re-litigating the dwelling issue on appeal. Issue 2: Motion for reconsideration Sheffield argues that the court erred in denying his motion for reconsideration, because the motion raised an issue of miscarriage of justice, i.e., he was wrongly indicted for dwelling burglary. Because Sheffield was not wrongly indicted for burglary of a dwelling, his Rule 60(b) motion does not fall within any of the limited provisions of the rule. In addition, he failed to show the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice as required under M.R.C.P 59(e).


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court