Kevin Brown v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 667

Background

Kevin Brown pleaded guilty on July 22, 2008 to fondling (Count I, CR08-134) and, at the same hearing, pled guilty to unrelated drug offenses (CR07-213); he received a ten-year MDOC sentence for fondling as part of a negotiated plea.
Brown filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) on March 6, 2014, challenging only the fondling conviction and sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, an involuntary plea, and lack of factual basis/defective indictment.
The Pontotoc County Circuit Court dismissed the PCR as time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 and found Brown’s claims without merit.
Brown’s core contention: trial counsel told him he would be eligible for parole, trusty/good-time, or earned release on his drug sentences after serving the ten-year fondling sentence, and that counsel failed to investigate the fondling charge and advise him he would serve the ten years “day for day.”
Record: plea colloquy shows Brown was advised of maximum exposure, acknowledged understanding the recommended ten-year sentence and that he was not promised anything to plead guilty; the indictment was read into the record and Brown admitted guilt.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding the claims were time-barred and, on the merits, failed Strickland prejudice and voluntariness tests; the record supplied an adequate factual basis for the plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — counsel’s alleged promise of parole/early release on unrelated drug sentences	Brown: counsel induced plea by promising parole/earned-release/trusty time on drug sentences after serving ten-year fondling term	State: Brown’s claims are time-barred; statutory law bars parole/earned time for sex offenders; plea colloquy contradicts claim	Court: Time-barred and meritless; parole/earned release unavailable for sex crimes; Brown failed Strickland prejudice prong
Ineffective assistance — failure to advise sentence would be served "day for day"	Brown: counsel failed to tell him ten-year fondling sentence would be served in full	State: Brown’s affidavit and plea colloquy show he understood the ten-year sentence; no prejudice shown	Court: No merit; Brown expected full sentence and cannot show he would have refused plea
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/defective indictment	Brown: counsel did not investigate or object to allegedly defective indictment	State: Claims are untimely and lack specificity showing how investigation would change outcome	Court: Time-barred and deficient (no specific uninvestigated evidence or likely different result)
Voluntariness and factual basis of plea	Brown: plea was not knowing/voluntary due to counsel’s misadvice; indictment lacked specificity/no factual basis	State: Plea colloquy shows waiver of rights, understanding of charges, and prosecutor read indictment into record	Court: Plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; indictment/factual basis adequate; claim time-barred

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel two-prong test)
Alexander v. State, 605 So. 2d 1170 (defendant’s plea and parole eligibility are distinct; parole is legislative grace)
Garner v. State, 928 So. 2d 911 (erroneous counsel advice about parole can be deficient performance)
Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (extraordinary circumstances may except PCR time-bar where counsel prevented adequate appeal)
Holliman v. State, 129 So. 3d 937 (lenient plea deals weigh against finding prejudice from counsel’s advice)
Hannah v. State, 943 So. 2d 20 (applying Strickland in guilty-plea context; defendant must show would have insisted on trial)
Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from UPCCRA bars)
Leatherwood v. State, 539 So. 2d 1378 (discusses prejudice standard affecting confidence in outcome)
Thomas v. State, 881 So. 2d 912 (ineffective-assistance allegations require specificity)