Robert Allen Worth v. State of Mississippi
223 So. 3d 844
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Between March 8 and April 20, 2012, Worth exchanged sexually explicit electronic messages with an undercover officer posing as a mother of a 13‑year‑old and arranged to meet the child in Biloxi. Worth traveled to Biloxi and was arrested at the meeting site; condoms, camera, GPS, lubricant, and vibrators were found in his car.
- Worth was indicted for exploitation of a child (Miss. Code Ann. § 97‑5‑33(6)). He submitted an open guilty plea acknowledging the statutory minimum and maximum and provided a factual basis affirming he solicited a child.
- At plea hearing Worth confirmed he discussed the petition with counsel, understood rights and sentencing exposure, and asserted no promises or coercion; sentencing was later set at 15 years (5 suspended, 10 to serve) plus five years post‑release supervision.
- Worth filed a pro se petition for post‑conviction relief alleging: ineffective assistance of counsel causing an involuntary plea (including promises of "time served"), First Amendment protection for his messages, prosecutorial/defense misconduct, and a "medical" (Viagra) defense to intent/ability.
- The circuit court denied PCR relief as meritless after finding the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligently entered; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Worth's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance / involuntary plea | Counsel misled him about sentence (promised "time served"), failed to obtain discovery, contact witnesses, or discuss strategy; would not have pled otherwise | Plea colloquy and petition show Worth was informed of minimum/maximum, discussed plea with counsel, and affirmed no promises; no proof of prejudice under Strickland | Denied — plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; alleged counsel errors were conclusory and did not show prejudice |
| First Amendment (free speech) | Messages were private emails between consenting adults and thus protected speech | Offers to engage in sexual abuse of children are not protected; undercover identity irrelevant | Denied — solicitation/attempts to arrange sex with a child are outside First Amendment protection |
| Misconduct by prosecutor/defense | Various unspecified misconduct claims during preliminary and pre‑sentencing proceedings | Guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional defects; no specific, supported misconduct shown that would invalidate plea | Denied — waived by valid guilty plea and unsupported by the record |
| Medical (Viagra) defense | Lacked intent/ability because he had erectile dysfunction and had no Viagra at arrest | Guilty plea waived right to present defenses; plea admitted the conduct and factual basis supported conviction | Denied — waived by plea and not persuasive to undo plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (offers to engage in illegal child‑sex transactions are not First Amendment protected speech)
- United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (speech arranging sexual abuse of children unprotected)
- Thomas v. State, 159 So. 3d 1212 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (standards for summary dismissal of PCR petitions and waiver by guilty plea)
- Minshew v. State, 169 So. 3d 953 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (plea colloquy can cure alleged counsel misinformation)
- Donnelly v. State, 841 So. 2d 207 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (same)