Mark Steven Lopez v. State of Mississippi
222 So. 3d 335
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mark S. Lopez pleaded guilty (Dec. 11, 2014) to unlawfully transferring <10 dosage units of hydrocodone and was sentenced as a habitual offender to four years without parole or probation.
- He had multiple prior felony convictions from 1995 with separate sentences of three, three, and five years.
- Lopez filed a motion for postconviction relief (styled as resentencing) asserting: ineffective assistance of counsel/illegal sentence, improper habitual-offender classification, completion of court-ordered long-term drug/alcohol treatment, and that he had served one-quarter of his sentence.
- The Harrison County Circuit Court summarily denied the PCR motion; Lopez appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and considered legal questions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel / illegal sentence | Lopez: counsel failed to inform him about House Bill 585; sentence illegal because offense now a misdemeanor | State: record shows counsel adequate; plea colloquy and petition acknowledged counsel; sentence within statutory maximum at time of plea | Court: Ineffective-assistance claim fails; sentence lawful at time of plea and not reversible error |
| Habitual-offender classification | Lopez: prior felonies were ~20 years old, so he should not be a habitual offender | State: statutory text requires two prior felony convictions with separate incidents and one-year+ sentences; timing irrelevant | Court: Lopez met §99-19-81 elements; classification proper |
| Completion of long-term drug/alcohol treatment | Lopez: successful completion entitles him to resentencing | State: completion did not trigger sentence modification per the original sentencing order | Court: Completion does not require resentencing |
| Time served / parole eligibility | Lopez: served one-fourth of term and implied request for parole modification under HB 585 or §47-7-3 | State: such relief requires a separate filing/procedure; not shown in PCR | Court: Issue not properly pursued here and not decided in Lopez’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (ineffective assistance prejudice standard for plea challenges)
- Birmingham v. State, 159 So. 3d 597 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for PCR denial)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (review standards cited)
- Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (no evidentiary hearing where allegations are conclusory)
- Cole v. State, 666 So. 2d 767 (Miss. 1995) (same)
- Byrne v. State, 30 So. 3d 1264 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court not required to grant evidentiary hearing on every motion)
- Anderson v. State, 195 So. 3d 835 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (presumption that counsel's conduct is reasonable)
- Liddell v. State, 7 So. 3d 217 (Miss. 2009) (same presumption)
- Wilson v. State, 81 So. 3d 1067 (Miss. 2012) (prejudice in plea context tied to plea process outcome)
- Tucker v. State, 93 So. 3d 913 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (illegally lenient sentence is harmless to defendant)