Evans v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 35
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Evans pled guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery, avoiding capital murder charges.
- Two accomplices participated in a convenience-store robbery; one clerk survived, another died.
- Indictment alleged habitual offender status based on prior 1999 armed-robbery and theft convictions.
- Plea deal forecast 20 years for manslaughter and 15 years for armed robbery, to run consecutively.
- On December 10, 2008 Evans moved for post-conviction relief; circuit court dismissed under 99-39-11(2).
- Evans appeals, raising four issues about prosecutorial disclosure timing, counsel, record access, and failure to review the guilty-plea transcript.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial disclosure timing | Evans argues late disclosure of accomplices' testimony violated Brady-like rights. | State contends pleas waived non-jurisdictional errors; disclosures were timely and inculpatory, not exculpatory. | No reversible error; pleas waived/insufficient evidence of improper timing. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence and to challenge habitual-offender elements. | No deficient performance; record shows satisfaction with counsel; speculative mitigation claims fail. | No ineffective-assistance merit; record supports trial counsel's performance. |
| Withholding of records | Access to transcripts would aid post-conviction relief and show non-habituated sentencing. | Guilty pleas foreclose right to free transcript; burden rests on showing specific prejudice. | No error; no demonstrated specific need or prejudice from lack of free transcript. |
| Failure to read transcript before dismissal | Circuit court should review guilty-plea transcript before dismissing under 99-39-11(2). | Dismissal under 99-39-11(2) does not require transcript review if face of motion shows no relief. | No reversible error; dismissal proper under statute without transcript review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 878 So.2d 227 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (non-jurisdictional rights waived by guilty plea)
- Swington v. State, 742 So.2d 1106 (Miss. 1999) (ineffective-assistance framework; totality of circumstances)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Walker v. State, 703 So.2d 266 (Miss. 1997) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice and deficient performance)
- Rush v. State, 811 So.2d 431 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (affidavit-based claims require corroboration beyond claimant's own)
- Lindsay v. State, 720 So.2d 182 (Miss. 1998) (requirement of evidence beyond self-affidavits for claims)
- Fleming v. State, 553 So.2d 505 (Miss. 1989) (predecessor rule on right to transcript in guilty-plea context)
- Walton v. State, 752 So.2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (prejudice showings for denial of transcripts in post-conviction)
- Roland v. State, 882 So.2d 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (investigative-assistance needs must be substantiated)
- Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323 (Miss. 1999) (limits on court-appointed investigators absent substantial need)
- Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1991) (requires concrete reasons for investigator requests)
- Caldwell v. Miss., 472 U.S. 320 (1985) (epitomizes ex post facto and evidentiary fairness concerns in post-conviction contexts)