205 So. 3d 697
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Abel J. Dedeaux was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and pleaded guilty on August 21, 2014; sentencing was deferred so he could attend a funeral.
- At the sentencing docket on August 25, 2014, Dedeaux orally moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court initially allowed withdrawal but then, the following day, revoked that permission and reinstated the guilty plea over Dedeaux’s objection.
- The trial court found Dedeaux guilty and sentenced him to six years; Dedeaux filed post-judgment motions and ultimately a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), all of which were denied by the circuit court.
- On PCR appeal, Dedeaux raised (1) that the court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of his plea, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) insufficiency of the evidence and improper habitual-offender finding.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the PCR denial (clear-error for factual findings; de novo for legal questions) and affirmed the circuit court, rejecting all three arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying plea withdrawal | Court allowed withdrawal on Aug 25, so plea should be void; reinstatement was improper; denial of copy of reconsideration order reversible | Court had discretion to reinstate; plea was entered voluntarily and intelligently; lack of copy of order is not a statutory PCR ground | No abuse of discretion; plea valid and reinstatement proper |
| Whether counsel provided ineffective assistance | Counsel failed to file motions (e.g., motion to suppress) and conflicted with Dedeaux, so performance was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial | Claims are vague; strategic choices fall within counsel discretion; guilty plea waives most ineffective-assistance claims unless affecting voluntariness | Claim fails: plea was voluntary; counsel’s decisions were strategic and not shown deficient or prejudicial |
| Whether State proved habitual-offender status | State failed to supply certified copies of prior convictions; thus habitual-offender status not proven | Dedeaux admitted on the record to prior felonies; prior indictments/sentencing orders were placed on the record and plea petition listed prior felonies | Habitual-offender status adequately established given plea and on-the-record recitation; indictment proper |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to support conviction | State did not present adequate evidence of guilt; alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations | A valid guilty plea waives right to require the State to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt | Conviction stands: guilty plea waived sufficiency challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanwey v. State, 147 So. 3d 367 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard of review for PCR denial)
- McLaurin v. State, 114 So. 3d 811 (Miss. Ct. App.) (PCR review principles)
- Chaney v. State, 121 So. 3d 306 (Miss. Ct. App.) (de novo review for legal questions)
- Terry v. State, 755 So. 2d 41 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standards for appellate review)
- Britton v. State, 130 So. 3d 90 (Miss. Ct. App.) (trial court discretion to allow/deny plea withdrawal)
- Burrough v. State, 9 So. 3d 368 (Miss.) (requirements for voluntary and intelligent plea)
- Harris v. State, 806 So. 2d 1127 (Miss.) (plea advisement requirements)
- Finley v. State, 739 So. 2d 425 (Miss. Ct. App.) (burden on defendant in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Scott v. State, 742 So. 2d 1190 (Miss. Ct. App.) (strategic decisions sheltered from ineffective-assistance claims)
- Cole v. State, 666 So. 2d 767 (Miss.) (trial strategy doctrine)
- Smith v. State, 86 So. 3d 276 (Miss. Ct. App.) (guilty plea waives many ineffective-assistance claims)
- Easley v. State, 60 So. 3d 812 (Miss. Ct. App.) (effect of guilty plea on proving prior convictions)
- Garrett v. State, 110 So. 3d 790 (Miss. Ct. App.) (guilty plea waives right to require proof beyond reasonable doubt)
- Jefferson v. State, 556 So. 2d 1016 (Miss.) (same)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)