291 So.3d 1132
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Gregory Carr faced three Washington County indictments (2013-0289; 2014-0264; 2015-0094) arising from separate events and was represented by counsel.
- Plea agreement (Dec. 3, 2015): Carr pled guilty to aggravated assault (2013-0289) and to one count of automobile burglary as a habitual offender (2015-0094); the State agreed to dismiss remaining counts and other indictments.
- Sentences imposed consistent with the plea deal: 15 years for aggravated assault (10 to serve, 5 post-release supervision) and 7 years as a habitual offender for automobile burglary, to run concurrently.
- A clerical/scrivener error in a December 8, 2015 "Order for Nolle Prosequi as to Count II Only" transposed counts and appeared to dismiss the aggravated-assault count, prompting Carr to file a post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion claiming his aggravated-assault plea was involuntary and attacking the habitual-offender enhancement and double jeopardy.
- The circuit court denied relief, corrected the scrivener error, found Carr’s guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily entered, and held the habitual-offender proceedings and amendment were proper; Carr appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carr) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carr’s guilty plea to aggravated assault was involuntary | Carr contends plea negotiations intended dismissal of aggravated-assault and pleas to two auto-burglaries; scrivener nolle pros shows dismissal | Record (plea petition & transcript) shows Carr admitted facts, pleaded guilty under oath and understood consequences | Court held plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; scrivener error did not invalidate plea |
| Whether State met burden and whether bifurcated hearing required for habitual-offender enhancement | Carr: State failed to produce pen packs/affidavits; court should have held separate (bifurcated) habitual-offender hearing | State: Carr was properly indicted as habitual; prior convictions were proffered and Carr admitted them, so no separate hearing was necessary | Court held proof and procedures were sufficient; no bifurcated hearing required where defendant admitted priors |
| Whether ore tenus amendment of indictment was improper | Carr: Amending the indictment was substantive and required grand jury; amendment violated due process/illegal sentence | State: Amendment benefitted Carr, counsel assented, and amendment reflected plea agreement | Court held amendment was permissible and benefitted Carr; he cannot complain after benefiting from it |
| Whether use of a prior conviction to enhance sentence violates double jeopardy | Carr: One prior used to enhance this sentence had already been used to enhance another sentence, resulting in double punishment | State: Enhancement increases punishment for current offense; prior convictions valid and may be used to enhance without constituting double jeopardy | Court held no double jeopardy; enhancement is for current offense and does not punish prior convictions again |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaulden v. State, 240 So. 3d 503 (defendant bears burden to prove guilty plea involuntary)
- Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836 (standard of review for PCR dismissal)
- Crouch v. State, 826 So. 2d 772 (requirements for proving habitual-offender status)
- Horn v. State, 825 So. 2d 725 (use of prior convictions to enhance a new sentence does not constitute double jeopardy)
- McGleachie v. State, 800 So. 2d 561 (defendant cannot complain about court leniency benefitting him)
- Bailey v. State, 728 So. 2d 1070 (prior convictions valid may be used to enhance subsequent punishments)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (fundamental-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- Berry v. State, 230 So. 3d 360 (weight given to sworn in-court statements)