Moody v. State, IA-00285-SCT
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Writing for the Court | BANKS; PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr.; McRAE; PITTMAN, P.J., and WALLER; McRAE |
Citation | 716 So.2d 592 |
Parties | Kenneth MOODY v. STATE of Mississippi. NO. 96- |
Decision Date | 11 June 1998 |
Docket Number | IA-00285-SCT |
Page 592
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
Michael Adelman, Alison Steiner, Adelman & Steiner, Hattiesburg, for Appellant.
Michael C. Moore, Attorney General, Pat Flynn, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for Appellee.
En Banc.
Page 593
BANKS, Justice, for the Court:
¶1 In this case, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to accept a proffered guilty plea in a capital case where the prosecutor agreed to the plea and declined to pursue the death penalty in exchange for the defendant's cooperation. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we reverse and remand this cause of action for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
¶2 In 1995 in Perry County, Mississippi, Kenneth Moody (Moody) was indicted for two counts of capital murder and one count of simple murder. On June 22, 1995, Moody entered into a written, signed agreement with the State entitled "Memorandum of Understanding" (the agreement). Pursuant to the agreement, Moody would plead guilty to the murder charges and would cooperate fully by making complete disclosures to the State regarding his participation in and knowledge of the charged offenses. Moody further agreed to provide testimony against his co-defendants. In exchange for Moody's pleas and cooperation, the State agreed to recommend that he be sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without parole. The State further agreed not to seek the death penalty.
¶3 The agreement also required that Moody provide truthful testimony before the grand jury if necessary, truthful testimony at trial if necessary, and take a polygraph examination regarding all matters disclosed to law enforcement agents, including information about the charged offenses. Also, the agreement required that Moody truthfully and completely reveal to the State all information and knowledge he possessed concerning a separate, unsolved murder, as well as any other crimes.
¶4 Pursuant to the agreement, Moody provided the State with the information. He also satisfied polygraph examinations concerning his statements about all of the murders in accordance with the agreement. However, at a subsequent plea hearing, the trial court refused to accept Moody's guilty pleas, stating the following:
... I will certainly take judicial notice of the fact that prosecutors ... have to have a great deal of discretion in dealing with matters that are before them. I fully recognize that one of those discretions being whether or not to seek the death penalty in capital cases. However, let me also point out several things that have occurred in this particular matter. One being that this Memorandum of Understanding was entered into by the previous District Attorney, who is not now serving. While I ... appreciate [the] pronouncement that [the State] feel[s] bound by it, this Court is of the opinion that that Memorandum of Understanding will not be enforced by this Court for a number of reasons ... [T]he District Attorney exceeded his discretion in entering into the [agreement] without consulting with the Court ... [H]e had the decision to decide whether or not to seek the death penalty, but ... he should have gotten authority of this Court before entering into any memorandum of understanding.... I would hope that he would have consulted the alleged victim's family members. And I would note for this record the heinousness of this alleged crime ... I am not going to enforce the [agreement].
¶5 Following this denial, Moody again moved to enforce the agreement. The circuit court promptly denied his motion, but certified the matter for interlocutory appeal to this Court. With this Court's permission, Moody takes such appeal and asserts a single argument.
II.
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, INCORPORATING THE PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPELLANT AND THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, SHOULD BE ENFORCED.
¶6 Moody relies upon two theories in support of his argument that the agreement should be enforced. First, he asserts that his guilty pleas were induced by the State's promise that he would not face the death
Page 594
penalty, and therefore the State's end of the bargain must be enforced. Second, he argues that he detrimentally relied on the agreement when he (1) gave several statements to the State about his and others' participation and involvement in the various murders; (2) fully disclosed all information and knowledge he possessed about the charged crimes, as well as another murder; (3) buttressed the credibility of his statements by submitting, satisfactorily, to lie detector tests; and (4) made himself available to testify against the co-defendants charged with the crimes. In light of this reliance and performance, Moody contends that the trial court must be compelled to enforce the agreement. He also points to the fact that the special prosecutor in the instant case (who has since been removed by the trial court) did not contest his motion to enforce the agreement.¶7 The State responds that the trial court should not be compelled to enforce the agreement since the trial court was not a party to the agreement. In addition, the State argues that, generally, trial courts are not bound by sentencing recommendations that are agreed upon by the parties. Lastly, the State suggests that the terms of the agreement are not frustrated by the court's refusal to accept the guilty plea, since forcing the case to trial in no way...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. State, No. 2003-DP-00765-SCT.
...388 So.2d 168, 170 (Miss.1980) (citing Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971)); Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998). See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 fn. 11, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (a criminal defendant does not ha......
-
Wilson v. State, 2007-DP-01218-SCT.
...at a later time. ¶ 15. "[A] criminal defendant has no absolute right to have his guilty plea accepted by a trial court." Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998). The trial judge's decision to accept or reject a plea is within the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Wade v. State, ......
-
Williams v. State, 2013–IA–00402–SCT.
...in denying the State leave to dismiss indictments after the defendants had relied detrimentally on plea agreement); Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998) (trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a plea agreement in murder case based on the trial court's desire that the defen......
-
Moody v. State, 2001-KA-00779-SCT.
...further proceedings, finding that the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing to accept Moody's plea agreement. Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592 (Miss.1998). Because of this holding, the trial court was directed upon remand to enforce the plea agreement, in toto. Id. at s 2. Upon rem......
-
Bennett v. State, No. 2003-DP-00765-SCT.
...388 So.2d 168, 170 (Miss.1980) (citing Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971)); Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998). See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 fn. 11, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) (a criminal defendant does not ha......
-
Wilson v. State, 2007-DP-01218-SCT.
...at a later time. ¶ 15. "[A] criminal defendant has no absolute right to have his guilty plea accepted by a trial court." Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998). The trial judge's decision to accept or reject a plea is within the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Wade v. State, ......
-
Williams v. State, 2013–IA–00402–SCT.
...in denying the State leave to dismiss indictments after the defendants had relied detrimentally on plea agreement); Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592, 594 (Miss.1998) (trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a plea agreement in murder case based on the trial court's desire that the defen......
-
Moody v. State, 2001-KA-00779-SCT.
...further proceedings, finding that the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing to accept Moody's plea agreement. Moody v. State, 716 So.2d 592 (Miss.1998). Because of this holding, the trial court was directed upon remand to enforce the plea agreement, in toto. Id. at s 2. Upon rem......