281 So.3d 84
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jodi Haney was indicted for a drive-by shooting; co-defendant Stephen Pharr gave a written statement implicating Haney and pled guilty as an accessory after the fact, agreeing to testify against Haney.
- After Pharr’s statement, Haney entered an open guilty plea to drive-by shooting; at plea hearing she denied being under influence, denied promises or threats, and affirmed understanding of rights and possible sentences.
- The trial court accepted the plea and three days later sentenced Haney to 20 years with 11 years suspended and credit for time served.
- Haney filed a pro se PCR motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel failed to investigate/prove innocence) and that her plea was involuntary because she was not told she would be ineligible for parole.
- The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR as without merit; Haney appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Haney: counsel failed to investigate and pursue exculpatory evidence, causing her to plead guilty | State: Haney’s allegations are conclusory; sworn plea-colloquy statements show satisfaction with counsel | Denied — allegations conclusory and contradicted by sworn in-court statements; no proof counsel’s performance caused the plea |
| Voluntariness of plea (parole information) | Haney: plea involuntary because she was unaware she would be ineligible for parole and would have considered trial if she’d known | State: Parole eligibility is not a required consequence to be disclosed; only misinformation that plaintiff relied on would invalidate plea | Denied — ignorance of parole eligibility does not render plea involuntary; no allegation she relied on misinformation |
| New appellate claim that counsel affirmatively misinformed re: parole | Haney raised this on appeal for first time | State: Claim is procedurally barred because it was not raised in PCR motion | Denied — procedurally barred on appeal |
| Trial judge’s post-plea sentencing remarks as basis to invalidate plea | Haney: judge’s comments about likely time to be served misled her about parole/"thirty for thirty" | State: Remarks were made after plea and thus cannot have induced the plea | Denied — comments occurred post-plea and could not have caused involuntary plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595 (Miss. 1999) (standard of review for factual findings on PCR and de novo for legal issues)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Thomas v. State, 159 So. 3d 1212 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (voluntary plea waives ineffective-assistance claims except those affecting voluntariness; in-court statements carry strong presumption of veracity)
- Worth v. State, 223 So. 3d 844 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (requirements for summary dismissal of PCR and causation standard for counsel-induced pleas)
- Gable v. State, 748 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 1999) (reliability of sworn plea-colloquy statements)
- Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 845 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (parole eligibility is not a consequence that must be explained at plea unless defendant was affirmatively misinformed)
- Ware v. State, 379 So. 2d 904 (Miss. 1980) (Mississippi precedent holding no constitutional right to parole information before plea)