Cane v. State
109 So. 3d 568
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cane's PCR motion in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court was summarily denied on August 24, 2011 following his August 8, 2011 filing.
- On February 1, 2010, Cane pled guilty to Count I (sexual battery: oral sex) and Count III (exploitation of a child: possessing a photo depicting a child in sexually explicit conduct); Count II (sexual battery: sexual intercourse) was nolle prossed.
- Sentences: Count I eight years MDOC with five years PRS and a $500 fine; Count III eight years MDOC to run concurrently with Count I; Cane also must register as a sex offender and received approximately one year credit for time served.
- The State alleged Cane committed oral sex with his seventeen-year-old niece and possessed nude photos of her; Cane opted to plead open with the State dismissing Count II.
- Criminal history commenced with a July 15, 2009 indictment on three counts; the circuit court accepted the guilty pleas after determining the statements and written plea documents reflected a voluntary and intelligent waiver of rights.
- Cane later argued that his Miranda rights were violated, that he did not understand his rights, and that his trial rights were compromised, prompting the PCR challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cane's guilty plea intelligent and voluntary? | Cane argues coercion/threats to accept long sentence. | State contends plea was voluntary and informed. | Plea was voluntary and intelligently entered. |
| Was there a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to Counts I and III? | Factual basis relied on a suppressed/conflicting confession and lack of witnesses. | Factual basis supported by Cane's written statement and State’s description, with multiple avenues to establish a basis. | Sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty pleas. |
| Did Cane receive ineffective assistance of counsel? | Counsel failed to move suppressions, exclude evidence, discover, or negotiate; rendering trial unfair. | No affidavit evidence; in-court assurances; defendant was satisfied with counsel; thus no merit. | Claim rejected; no merit to ineffective assistance. |
| Was Cane's right to a speedy trial violated? | Speedy trial rights were denied due to delays. | Guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional rights, including speedy trial. | Waived by valid guilty plea; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. State, 955 So.2d 962 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (statements under oath carry a strong presumption of veracity)
- Herrod v. State, 901 So.2d 635 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (open-court statements carry presumption of truth)
- Anderson v. State, 577 So.2d 390 (Miss. 1991) (guilty plea waives certain rights)
- Turner v. State, 864 So.2d 288 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (factual basis for a guilty plea may be established in multiple ways)
- Fulton v. State, 844 So.2d 1171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (valid guilty plea waives right to speedy trial)
- Dora v. State, 986 So.2d 917 (Miss. 2008) (speedy-trial claims not preserved may be waived)
- Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1999) (standard for appellate review of PCR findings)
- Bank of Miss. v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 677 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1996) (standard of review for factual findings)