129 So. 3d 208
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Fox Sr. was convicted on three counts arising from domestic-violence incidents against Takeda Brack, his ex-girlfriend, culminating in a high-speed chase and collision.
- He pled guilty on September 2, 2009 to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of leaving the scene of an accident, with sentences totaling twenty years on the first count, twenty years post-release supervision on the second, and five years for leaving the scene (concurrent).
- The events included a brutal August 2008 beating, later pursuit of Brack with Colemen in tow, a multi-street chase, and a collision in which Brack and Coleman were injured.
- Fox filed a lengthy post-conviction collateral-relief motion (PCCR) on April 4, 2011, with exhibits; the circuit court denied relief in January 2012.
- On appeal, Fox argued multiple issues including summary judgment, indictment validity, grand-jury issues, sufficiency of indictment, suppression of favorable evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court reviewed de novo legal questions and found no reversible error.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that all raised issues lacked merit and that Fox’s guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Summary-judgment viability in PCCR | Fox argues State failed to respond; default judgment should follow. | Rule 56(e) not mandatory; PCCR has evidentiary record. | No error; no default; summary judgment appropriate only if no genuine issue. |
| Indictment validity and sufficiency | Indictment signatures and foreman affidavit defective; non-jurisdictional flaws. | Guilty plea waived non-jurisdictional defects; indictment sufficient. | Issues meritless; indictment valid and not vague; plea waived defects. |
| Grand-jury indictment rights | Indictment lacks location specifics; undermines grand-jury process. | Indictment stated date, victims, elements; waiver occurred. | No reversible error; indictment sufficiently informed Fox; defects waived. |
| Guilty plea voluntariness | Letter and claimed lack of understanding show involuntariness. | Plea colloquy and sworn petition show voluntariness. | Plea voluntary and intelligent; record supports validity. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel & Brady claims | Counsel failed to investigate indictment issues, suppression, and Brack’s tests. | Affidavits unsupported; no prejudice; records show no suppressed evidence. | No ineffective-assistance or Brady violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. State, 86 So.3d 887 (Miss. 2012) (legal-sufficiency of indictment and related issues discussed)
- Reeder v. State, 783 So.2d 711 (Miss. 2001) (non-jurisdictional defects waived by guilty plea)
- Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So.2d 859 (Miss. 2005) (summary-judgment outcomes in civil-like PCCR actions)
- Pollard v. State, 932 So.2d 82 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (indictment sufficiency and lesser-punishment statutes guidance)
- Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871 (Miss. 1991) (PCCR evidence standards and burden of proof)
- Bourdeaux v. State, 412 So.2d 241 (Miss. 1982) (when multiple statutes may apply, lesser-punishment statute controls)
- Ward v. State, 879 So.2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (plea petitions as sworn statements; evidentiary weight)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1969) (solemn declarations in open court carry presumptive verity)
- United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996) (selective-prosecution requiring clear evidence to rebut lawful prosecutorial conduct)