Evans v. State
114 So. 3d 778
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Evans indicted for attempted robbery under Miss. Code Ann. §97-1-7 and as a habitual offender under §99-19-81 based on two prior felonies.
- At the time of the offense, Evans was on post-release supervision; an eight-year suspended term was reinstated after revocation of supervision due to armed-robbery.
- On June 6, 2011, Evans pled guilty and was sentenced to six years day-for-day to be served consecutively to the existing eight-year term.
- On May 4, 2012, Evans moved for post-conviction collateral relief (PCCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary plea, citing lack of speedy-trial rights information, misadvice, lack of read plea petition, habitual-offender indictment, due-process concerns, coercion, and hearsay claims from relatives.
- The circuit court denied the PCCR on June 4, 2012; Evans timely appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the guilty plea voluntary and intelligent, counsel effective, and due-process concerns lacking, with the denial of PCCR affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea voluntary and intelligent? | Evans contends lack of informed rights and coercion. | Record shows waiver of rights and no coercion; plea colloquy adequate. | Yes; plea was voluntary and intelligent. |
| Did Evans receive ineffective assistance of counsel in the PCCR proceeding? | Counsel failed to object to rights notice, gave bad plea advice, misrepresented habitual-offender status, and denied reading the petition. | Counsel's performance was within reasonable professional assistance; no prejudice shown. | No, claims fail under Strickland; no prejudice shown. |
| Were Evans's due-process rights violated by lack of personal address by the judge at the plea hearing? | Judge did not address him personally in the proceedings. | Judge addressed Evans individually and he responded; no due-process violation. | No; record shows personal addressing and understanding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. State, 583 So.2d 174 (Miss.1991) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
- Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170 (Miss.1992) (defendant must understand charges and consequences)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (U.S.1987) (solemn declarations in open court carry presumption of verity)
- Pevey v. State, 914 So.2d 1287 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (recantation concerns in plea proceedings)
- Vielee v. State, 653 So.2d 920 (Miss.1995) (affidavits required for ineffective-assistance claims in PCR)
- Mitchell v. State, 58 So.3d 59 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (post-conviction prejudice requirement for guilty-plea cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.1984) (two-prong deficient performance and prejudice test)
- Myles v. State, 988 So.2d 436 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (personal-address requirement under URCCC 8.04)
- Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss.1999) (standard for reviewing law issues on PCR)