Hunt v. State
99 So. 3d 269
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hunt was indicted in Madison County on Sep 28, 2006 for possession of more than two grams but less than ten grams of cocaine with intent to sell (cause 2007-0071).
- The State also pursued felony evasion in Rankin County via bill of information (cause 20014).
- On Nov 17, 2008 Hunt pled guilty in Madison County (2007-0071) and Rankin County (20014).
- Hunt received 30 years in MDOC with 20 years to serve and 5 years post-release supervision, plus a concurrent 5-year term in Rankin County; other Rankin charges were remanded.
- On Feb 24, 2011 Hunt filed a PCR motion in 2007-0071; the circuit court summarily dismissed under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2).
- The circuit court’s standard of review was de novo for legal issues and abuse-of-discretion for factual findings; the Court affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilty plea validity and factual basis | Hunt argues the indictment was amended without knowledge or proof of grand-jury approval and that no factual basis existed. | State contends no amendment occurred; plea had a valid factual basis and elements were explained. | Guilty plea voluntary and informed; adequate factual basis shown. |
| Right to an evidentiary hearing | PCR should be accompanied by an evidentiary hearing addressing all claims. | Circuit court properly dismissed under §99-39-11(2) with no entitlement to relief. | No error; summary dismissal appropriate. |
| Right to appeal after guilty plea | Hunt asserts circuit court failed to advise him of right to appeal. | Post-2008 amendment to §99-35-101 bars appeals from circuit court to Supreme Court after guilty plea and sentence. | Issue without merit; no right to appeal under amended statute. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to object to plea, investigate mental state, and advise on defenses and indictment issues. | Hunt acknowledged the plea and its factual basis; counsel's performance not deficient; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective-assistance error; insufficient showing of deficiency or prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grissom v. State, 66 So.3d 1280 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for affirming PCR denial absent clear error on facts; law de novo when raised)
- Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368 (Miss. 2009) (requires factual basis and knowing, voluntary plea; review of plea proceedings)
- Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765 (Miss. 1991) (necessity of factual basis for guilty plea under Rule 8.04(A)(3))
- Henderson v. State, 89 So.3d 598 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (plea must be voluntary, knowingly, intelligently understood by court)
- Cherry v. State, 24 So.3d 1048 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (ineffective assistance standard; Strickland framework applied)