John E. Wrenn v. State of Mississippi
207 So. 3d 1252
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Wrenn, a convicted felon, was indicted for possession of a sawed-off shotgun and charged as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81.
- Wrenn filed a petition to enter a guilty plea the day before trial; his plea paperwork and the plea colloquy incorrectly stated the minimum punishment was one year (and suggested possible parole), despite the habitual-offender statute mandating a ten-year sentence without parole.
- At the plea hearing the court twice discussed enhanced punishment and accepted an open guilty plea; the court also warned Wrenn the judge could impose the statutory maximum but affirmed a one-year minimum during colloquy.
- At sentencing the judge initially pronounced five years, then corrected the sentence to the mandatory ten years under § 99-19-81 after the State objected.
- Wrenn filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) petition arguing his plea was involuntary because he and the court were misinformed about the applicable minimum sentence; the circuit court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the plea was involuntary as a matter of law because Wrenn was misinformed about the mandatory sentencing consequences of pleading as a habitual offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wrenn's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given misinformation about minimum sentence | Wrenn: plea involuntary because counsel and court told him minimum could be one year and that judge could be lenient; he relied on that in pleading guilty | State: counsel did not misinform; court could ultimately impose leniency via rare proportionality review (Pool) so defendant was not misled | Held: Plea involuntary — both counsel and court misinformed Wrenn about the mandatory 10-year sentence under the habitual-offender statute; conviction set aside |
| Whether a sentencing court has discretion to decline mandatory habitual-offender sentence due to proportionality concerns | Wrenn: implied hope of leniency; counsel planned proportionality argument at sentencing | State: argued proportionality review might permit a lesser sentence in extraordinary cases | Held: Sentencing under § 99-19-81 is not discretionary; proportionality review is rarely successful and does not negate the court’s duty to advise the correct statutory minimum |
| Whether a defendant’s in-court sworn statement that no promises were made forecloses a later claim of misinformation | Wrenn: oath at plea did not address substantive misinformation about statutory minimum | State: relied on plea colloquy assurances and warning about maximum | Held: A sworn assertion that no promises were made does not cure affirmative misinformation about sentencing consequences; misinformation renders plea involuntary |
| Whether erroneous plea paperwork/colloquy can be cured by later sentencing explanation | Wrenn: never advised of true mandatory minimum before plea; later correction at sentencing was too late | State: sentencing court later clarified and imposed statutory sentence | Held: Information must be accurate at time of plea; later correction at sentencing cannot retroactively validate an involuntary plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Courtney v. State, 704 So. 2d 1352 (Miss. Ct. App. 1997) (defendant must be advised of applicable minimum and maximum; misinformation about habitual-offender sentencing can render plea involuntary)
- Pool v. State, 724 So. 2d 1044 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (discusses proportionality inquiry as extraordinary basis to deviate from statutory sentencing)
- Harris v. State, 527 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 1989) (sentencing under habitual-offender statute is mandatory; trial court has no alternative but to apply statute)
- Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062 (Miss. 1990) (guilty plea must be vacated if defendant was not properly informed of sentencing consequences)
- Barnwell v. State, 567 So. 2d 215 (Miss. 1990) (enhanced mandatory sentences frequently withstand proportionality challenges)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (outside capital cases, successful proportionality challenges are exceedingly rare)