Hargett v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00545-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CT-00545-SCT ; 2002-CT-00545-SCT ; 2002-CP-00545-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-29-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Illegal sentence Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-05-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Stephen Simpson Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: A2401-2001-00096 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Rodrequiz W. Hargett |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: 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 - Voluntariness of plea - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Illegal sentence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rodrequiz Hargett pled guilty to transfer of a controlled substance as a habitual offender. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Voluntariness of plea Hargett argues that his guilty plea was not voluntarily given because he allegedly was not informed of the mandatory minium sentence that he could receive for his guilty plea. A plea is considered voluntary if the defendant is advised about the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the entry of the plea. Hargett signed a sworn statement which acknowledged that he was pleading guilty as a habitual offender and that acknowledged the maximum and minimum sentences as well as the maximum and minimum fine he could receive. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Hargett argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he did not actually commit the offense to which he pled guilty, perjured testimony was used against him, and he was not properly advised that he was pleading guilty as a habitual offender. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. Hargett provided no affidavits or proposed testimony in support of his argument. Therefore, he has failed to meet his statutory burden of proof required to establish a prima facie showing. Issue 3: Legality of sentence Hargett argues for the first time on appeal that the court imposed an illegal sentence when it ordered him to serve ten years without benefit of probation or parole and that the court should have imposed the maximum sentence of thirty years without parole. Hargett is barred from raising this issue on appeal, and for that matter, in the trial court had it been properly pled. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
