Kenny Walton v. State of Mississippi
233 So. 3d 909
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kenny Walton pleaded guilty in Nov. 2008 to multiple offenses with sentencing deferred pending his truthful testimony against co-defendant Michael McGee.
- Pre-plea, the State filed a one-page supplemental discovery report indicating co-defendants Matthews and McKnight did not inculpate Walton and named other accomplices; defense counsel Williams denies receiving that report.
- Walton entered his guilty pleas; McGee was later tried and acquitted when witnesses, including Walton, did not implicate McGee or Walton and instead identified two other men.
- Walton moved to withdraw his pleas and later filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to advise him of exculpatory co-defendant statements; this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue.
- At the evidentiary hearing, Williams testified he spoke with Matthews and Matthews’ attorney and relayed that Matthews said Walton was not involved, but Williams also said Walton gave contradictory, incriminating statements and thus elected to plead.
- The trial court found Williams did not receive the State’s supplemental discovery through proper channels, credited Williams’ testimony, and denied PCR; the majority affirmed, while a dissent found counsel’s investigation and advice deficient and would have granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Walton's Argument | Williams/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walton received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his guilty plea because counsel failed to advise him of exculpatory statements by co-defendants | Walton: Counsel failed to inform him of exculpatory statements and did not investigate; but for that failure he would have gone to trial | Williams/State: Williams either did not receive the supplemental discovery; he did learn Matthews said Walton was not involved and relayed that to Walton; Walton nonetheless chose to plead based on his own incriminating statements | Court affirmed denial of PCR — no clear error in trial court’s credibility findings; Strickland standard not met |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings after the evidentiary hearing were clearly erroneous | Walton: Findings ignore contradictions and insufficient investigation; prejudice to plea exists | State: Trial court credited Williams’ testimony and his account of attorney-client communications; deference to trial court credibility determinations | Court: Affirmed — appellate court defers to trial court on witness credibility absent clear error |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Thinnes v. State, 196 So.3d 204 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (discusses reasonable-probability prejudice standard in plea context)
- Chase v. State, 171 So.3d 463 (Miss. 2015) (appellate review deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Jordan v. State, 918 So.2d 636 (Miss. 2005) (counsel’s duty to investigate and effect of deficient performance on plea/trial integrity)