Eric Daniel Lackaye v. State of Mississippi, 166 So. 3d 560

Background

Eric Daniel Lackaye was indicted on four drug counts (two sales of <30g marijuana, one possession >30g <1kg with intent to distribute, and one methamphetamine possession), all enhanced as a subsequent drug offender and habitual offender.
On November 28, 2011, Lackaye pled guilty to three marijuana charges as a subsequent offender; the methamphetamine count was nolle prosequi. Sentences: 6 years, 6 years, and 40 years (release after 17 years); all concurrent.
In February 2014 Lackaye filed a post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion alleging his pleas were not knowing/voluntary and that counsel was ineffective because counsel told him he would likely be eligible for parole (or release after ~25%–50% of sentence).
The trial court summarily dismissed the PCR motion. Lackaye appealed, arguing ineffective assistance, involuntary pleas based on misinformation about parole eligibility, and erroneous summary dismissal.
The Court of Appeals found the plea colloquy did not address parole eligibility, and Lackaye submitted his affidavit plus supporting affidavits and a letter from counsel indicating counsel told him he "may qualify" for release after 25% or 50%.
The court concluded Lackaye presented sufficient, noncontradicted evidence to require an evidentiary hearing and reversed and remanded for that hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel gave erroneous advice about parole eligibility that rendered the plea involuntary	Lackaye says counsel told him he would likely be eligible for parole/early release (~25%–50%), and he relied on that when pleading guilty	State points to plea colloquy showing Lackaye knew possible sentence and was satisfied with counsel; parole eligibility need not be explained at plea	Court: Plea colloquy did not address parole; because Lackaye submitted supporting affidavits and a letter, he met burden to obtain an evidentiary hearing on voluntariness
Whether Lackaye received ineffective assistance of counsel by being misinformed about parole	Lackaye: misinformation was deficient performance and prejudiced him because he would have gone to trial otherwise	State: counsel’s performance presumed reasonable; plea colloquy shows awareness of sentence	Court: Allegations and supporting evidence suffice to warrant an evidentiary hearing on Strickland-based claim
Whether the PCR motion could be summarily dismissed without a hearing	Lackaye argues his affidavits and supporting documents entitle him to a hearing	State relied on record and plea colloquy to support dismissal	Court: Because movant offered affidavit(s) from third parties and a counsel letter that are not contradicted by record, summary dismissal was improper; remand for hearing required
Whether counsel’s alleged failure to file discovery warrants relief	Lackaye contends counsel failed to file discovery	State submitted record showing a discovery request/response from the State was filed	Court: Record contains evidence counsel sought discovery; claim did not warrant hearing separate from parole/advice claims

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Thomas v. State, 881 So. 2d 912 (Miss. Ct. App.) (plea involuntary if defendant relied on attorney’s incorrect parole advice; such claim may require hearing)
Sylvester v. State, 113 So. 3d 618 (Miss. Ct. App.) (defendant entitled to hearing when supported by defendant and third-party affidavits alleging misinformation about earned-time eligibility)
Gable v. State, 748 So. 2d 703 (Miss.) (when a movant’s affidavit is contradicted by unimpeachable record, no hearing is required)
Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard of review for PCR factual findings and legal conclusions)
Woods v. State, 71 So. 3d 1241 (Miss. Ct. App.) (guilty plea binding if voluntary, knowing, intelligent)