McDonald v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-01744-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-03-2003 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-06-2002 Appealed from: Lowndes County Circuit Court Judge: Lee J. Howard Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED. District Attorney: Forrest Allgood Case Number: 2002-0113-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Christopher Jerome McDonald |
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 - Double jeopardy - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Christopher McDonald pled guilty to possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He was sentenced to twelve years. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Double jeopardy McDonald argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy since both counts of his indictment used the same possession of ephedrine. Though both counts of McDonald's indictment may concern the same ephedrine, he was not prosecuted, tried nor convicted on both counts. Therefore, his rights against double jeopardy were not violated. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel McDonald argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his faulty indictment. To prove his claim, he must show his attorney’s conduct was deficient and prejudicial. The sole ground on which McDonald claims his counsel's performance was inadequate, that of the double jeopardy violation, was found to be without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
