Houston v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 55241,55241 |
| Citation | 461 So.2d 720 |
| Parties | Willie HOUSTON, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Willie Houston, Jr., pro se.
Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by Walter L. Turner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, HAWKINS and SULLIVAN, JJ.
The Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi, entered an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on August 29, 1983, by appellant. From that order he appeals.
On December 2, 1982, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of murder before the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. A second indictment of armed robbery against appellant was nol prossed by the state of Mississippi. On August 29, 1983, appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his confessions and guilty plea were not knowingly and voluntarily made and that the circuit court of Washington County erred in not receiving a transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court before hearing his case. The Circuit Court of Washington County entered an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus, based upon a transcript in which Houston entered his guilty plea and upon our decision in Bougon v. State, 405 So.2d 101 (Miss.1981), which states that the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear capital charges against a juvenile.
Appellant assigns two errors:
1. The failure of the trial court to hold that the appellant's confessions and guilty plea were not knowingly and voluntarily made.
2. Failure of the circuit court to receive certification from the juvenile court to try the case prior to receiving appellant's guilty plea.
Houston gave two confessions to the Greenville police on September 1, 1982, the day following the crime. Both confessions were signed on a voluntary statement form that acknowledged the reading and waiver of Houston's Miranda rights. The first statement given from 11:51 a.m. to 12:24 p.m. on September 1, 1982, recounts that Houston participated in the robbery but did not fire the shots that resulted in the death of the owner of Tom's Grocery. The second statement given by Houston was on the evening of September 1, 1982, from 6:20 to 6:34 p.m. and it reflects that in fact it was Houston who was carrying the gun.
Houston originally pled not guilty to separate indictments for capital murder and armed robbery. On December 2, 1982, Houston went before the Circuit Court of Washington County to withdraw his not guilty plea and enter a plea of guilty to the charge of murder upon the state's recommendation as to sentence, life imprisonment. The state moved to nol prosse the armed robbery charge.
The court asked Houston if he wanted to plead guilty to the lesser included charge of murder. He replied, "Yes, sir, cause I was with the man who did it." Houston, a 16-year-old in the tenth grade, agreed that he had discussed the case with his lawyer, was satisfied with his services and had no complaints about his lawyer. The district attorney stated that the state was prepared to prove that Houston, together with Brown, shot Tom Quan with a pistol while engaged in a robbery. Houston agreed that the district attorney's statement was substantially correct and the crime the D.A. described was that to which he was pleading guilty.
The court then explained to Houston about the right to a trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof on the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court explained to Houston that his lawyer would have the right to cross-examine the witnesses the state offered and that he could call any witnesses he had to testify before the jury. The court explained that under the law he had a choice as to whether he wanted to testify or not, and if he did not then the jury would not be allowed to presume, just from this fact alone, that he was guilty. The court also explained that he had the right to an appeal if he were convicted.
Houston agreed that he understood what had been explained to him about the jury trial, and that by entering the plea of guilty he gives up his right to trial by jury. He understood that he would be sentenced to life imprisonment. He agreed that no promises or hopes of reward had been made to induce him to enter the guilty plea. He agreed that no threats, force, coercion or intimidation had forced or intimidated him into entering the guilty plea. He agreed that he was entering this guilty plea freely and voluntarily, and that he was in fact guilty of the crime of murder to which he was pleading guilty.
Houston's parents agreed that they had conferred with their son and his lawyer about the plea and they understood what was happening.
The court accepted Houston's guilty plea and sentenced him to the State Department of Corrections at Parchman for the rest of his life and nol prossed the armed robbery charge.
On August 29, 1983, Houston filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi, alleging that his confessions were the product of lengthy interrogations without the benefit of counsel and that he did not fully understand his Miranda rights at the time he signed the waiver and confessions. Houston alleged that in the lineup the victim's wife identified him as the person standing by the door. The petition refers to Exhibit C, although no such exhibit is a part of the record on appeal. Houston also alleged that at the time he pled guilty he believed he would be imprisoned in the county jail for no more than one year. Finally, Houston alleged that the circuit court erred in not receiving a certification from youth court to hear the murder charge against him.
Four days later, on September 2, 1983, the circuit court entered an order denying Houston's petition. Judge Wilkes, who heard Houston's initial change of plea, found that, based on the transcript, Houston fully understood his constitutional rights and his plea of guilty was freely and voluntarily made. The court rejected Houston's contention that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the case was not properly certified from Youth Court to Circuit Court. The court noted that certification was not necessary under Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 43-23-29 (1972), as construed by Bougon v. State, 405 So.2d 101 (Miss.1981), in which the Court held that the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases where the minor is charged with any crime which upon conviction is punishable by life imprisonment or death.
Finally, with regard to sentencing, the court rejected Houston's contention that the Youth Court Act was not considered by the court to transfer his case to the Youth Court. The court noted that petitioner's attorney never filed a motion to transfer. The court noted that the statutory alternative for sentencing minor offenders under Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 43-21-159(3) (1972) was considered but rejected in light of Houston's juvenile record and the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court found that it would not be in the best interest of either Houston or the public for him to be committed to a state institution for delinquents, a county jail, or placed on probation.
WERE HOUSTON'S CONFESSIONS...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanier v. State
...391 (Miss.1991); Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1019 (Miss.1989); Thomas v. State, 472 So.2d 425, 426 (Miss.1985); Houston v. State, 461 So.2d 720, 724 (Miss.1984); Sanders v. State, 440 So.2d 278, 283 (Miss.1983); Phillips v. State, 421 So.2d 476, 479-83 (Miss.1982); Wood v. State, 35......
-
Jefferson v. State, 07-58547
...905, 909 (Miss.1969); Rule 3.03(3)(C), Miss.Unif.Crim.R.Cir.Ct.Prac.4 Thomas v. State, 472 So.2d 425, 426 (Miss.1985); Houston v. State, 461 So.2d 720, 724 (Miss.1984).5 This right is secured as a function of the due process clause of both the federal and state constitutions. See Wood v. St......
-
Smith v. State
...Billiot v. State, 515 So.2d 1234, 1237 (Miss.1987). Harveston v. State, 597 So.2d 641, 643 (Miss.1992). See also Houston v. State, 461 So.2d 720 (Miss.1984) (post-conviction relief petition was denied because the transcript showed affirmatively that Houston's plea was freely and voluntarily......
-
Lott v. State, 89-KP-0525
...was a more than adequate factual basis for the circuit court to accept his guilty plea. See, Reynolds, 521 So.2d at 917; Houston v. State, 461 So.2d 720 (Miss.1984); Russell v. State, 428 So.2d 131, on remand, 428 So.2d 136 (Ala.1982); United States v. Gaskins, 485 F.2d 1046, 1048 (D.C.Cir.......