Smith v. State
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 174
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Cedric Smith appeals PCR dismissal in Pearl River County Circuit Court.
- Smith argues waiver of indictment by grand jury was involuntary, Alford plea was involuntary and lacked a sufficient factual basis, and trial counsel was ineffective.
- Smith waived indictment by sworn statement and entered an Alford plea to a one-count statutory rape information; the State recommended a non-binding five-year sentence but the court imposed twenty years with portions suspended.
- The PCR standard requires reviewing facts for clear error and law de novo, with movant bearing the burden of showing entitlement to relief.
- The court affirmed the PCR dismissal, holding the waiver valid, the factual basis sufficient, the plea voluntary, and the ineffective-assistance arguments inadequately supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of indictment voluntary | Smith claims the indictment waiver was involuntary | State contends waiver was voluntary, supported by record | Waiver valid; no evidence of actual involuntariness |
| Factual basis and venue for Alford plea | Alford plea lacked factual basis showing Pearl River County; insufficient penetration element | Record shows events occurred in Pearl River County; basis sufficient | Factual basis sufficient; venue proper; elements covered by testimony and surrounding facts |
| Voluntariness of plea during colloquy | Trial court failed to explain statutory elements during plea colloquy | Counsel explained the charge; no constitutional requirement to recite elements | Plea voluntary; elements explained by counsel; Bradshaw standard satisfied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed on several counts including 412(b)(2)(A) and possession of texts; improper impeachment leads | Allegations unsupported by record; no ineffective assistance shown | Allegations insufficient; no reversible error; no hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 521 So.2d 914 (Miss.1988) (factual basis required for guilty plea; must show essential elements)
- Lott v. State, 597 So.2d 627 (Miss.1992) (factual basis must be precise enough to determine criminal conduct)
- Cougle v. State, 966 So.2d 827 (Miss.2007) (Alford plea requires knowing and intelligent choice)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2005) (elements of offense need not be explained by court if counsel explained)
- Berry v. State, 19 So.3d 137 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (indictment waiver by sworn statement valid)
- Edwards v. State, 995 So.2d 824 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (indictment waiver and information interplay)
- Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103 (Miss.1993) (fair inference suffices for factual basis)
- Hill v. State, 60 So.3d 824 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (plea validity via defense counsel explanation)
- Baker v. State, 358 So.2d 401 (Miss.1978) (solemn declarations in open court carry verity)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (validity of guilty plea despite innocence)