57 So. 3d 677
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Karriem pleaded guilty Nov. 21, 2005 to embezzlement by a public official for loaning a city cell phone; $106.03 restitution.
- Circuit Court sentenced him to 10 years with 10 years suspended and 5 years probation; underlying MDOC custody.
- 2007 probation revocation for cocaine; ordered into a one-year drug-treatment program.
- April 2008 state petitioned to revoke suspended sentence; probation revoked after another positive cocaine test and failure to complete treatment; ordered to serve the original ten-year sentence.
- PCR motion filed by Karriem in 2009; denied August 31, 2009.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no error in the circuit court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of the guilty plea | Karriem argues plea was not knowingly voluntary due to nonadjudication statute | State contends plea was voluntary and discretion lay with the court to apply the statute | Issue meritless; plea voluntary; court retained discretion over statute application |
| Effectiveness of counsel | Counsel failed to press for statute application; ineffective assistance | Counsel did not guarantee statute application; no constitutional deprivation | Issue meritless; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Proportionality/cruel-and-unusual punishment | Ten-year sentence disproportionate to about $500 embezzlement | Probation options and violations justified eventual imprisonment; within guidelines | Sentence within statutory limits and court’s discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. State, 16 So. 3d 66 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (voluntariness review standards for guilty pleas exists in Mississippi law)
- House v. State, 754 So. 2d 1147 (Miss. 1999) (voluntariness requirements for guilty pleas)
- Jones v. State, 976 So. 2d 407 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (ineffective-assistance standard (preponderance; Strickland) - two-prong test)
- Ward v. State, 914 So. 2d 332 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (ineffective assistance and standard of review)
- Hull v. State, 983 So.2d 331 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (presumption of adequate counsel; review standards)
- Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668 (Miss.2001) (counsel adequacy presumption; open court assertions matter)
- Harmason v. Smith, 888 F.2d 1527 (5th Cir.1989) (prediction about sentence not guaranteed relief)
- Self v. Blackburn, 751 F.2d 789 (5th Cir.1985) (statements of probabilities do not guarantee outcomes)
- Gray v. State, 926 So.2d 961 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (proportionality factors for sentencing)
- Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612 (Miss.1985) (standards for reviewing sentence within statutory limits)