Wilkerson v. State
89 So. 3d 610
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wilkerson appealed a circuit court’s summary dismissal of her post-conviction relief (PCR) motion challenging a guilty plea to depraved-heart murder and alleging ineffective trial counsel.
- She previously pled guilty to depraved-heart murder after initially pleading not guilty to capital murder following Tristen Chin’s death.
- Tristen died after Wilkerson babysat him; she gave multiple inconsistent accounts before admitting she shook him.
- A plea colloquy established she understood consequences; the court stated life without parole eligibility considerations.
- Three years later, she filed PCR arguing ineffective assistance; the circuit court denied relief summarily, and Wilkerson appealed.
- The issue on appeal is whether the plea was voluntary and whether counsel’s performance entitles relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of the plea challenged | Wilkerson contends the plea was involuntary on multiple grounds | Wilkerson argues the trial court inadequately explained consequences and coerced plea | No reversible error; plea voluntary; adequate explanation given. |
| Procedural bar for voluntariness claims in PCR | Wilkerson argues the issues were raised via PCR despite procedural bar | Court applied procedural bar but found no error on voluntariness | Procedural bar acknowledged but arguments without merit. |
| Adequacy of plea colloquy and notification of consequences | Wilkerson claims failure to explain minimum/maximum sentences | Record shows informed understanding of sentences and consequences | Judge thoroughly explained consequences; sworn statements support voluntariness. |
| Factual basis for the plea | Wilkerson sought to present her own version of events | State’s recited facts and her admission provided a sufficient basis | Factual basis established by Wilkerson’s admission; no error in accepting plea. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to investigate, communicate, and offer mitigation | Claims waived by voluntary plea or unsupported by particularized prejudice | Waived insofar as related to voluntariness; no Strickland prejudice shown; no mitigation claim changing plea outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. State, 716 So.2d 538 (Miss. 1998) (procedural bar and standards for PCR adequacy)
- Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170 (Miss. 1992) (voluntariness depends on counsel’s advisement and understanding)
- Sayles v. State, 35 So.3d 567 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (burden on PCR movant to prove involuntariness by preponderance)
- Gardner v. State, 531 So.2d 805 (Miss. 1988) (interrogation thoroughness signals voluntariness of plea)
- Hill v. State, 60 So.3d 824 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (sworn in-court statements carry presumptive truth in voluntariness analysis)
- Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368 (Miss. 2009) (prejudice standard for claims of ineffective assistance in plea context)
- Jones v. State, 976 So.2d 407 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (admission can establish a factual basis for a guilty plea)
- Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764 (Miss. 1998) (factual basis requirement for pleas and admissibility of admissions)
- U.S. v. Cavitt, 550 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2008) (limitations on ineffective-assistance challenges following guilty pleas)