Smith v. State, 2001-CP-00221-COA.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Mississippi |
| Writing for the Court | Before McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, and MYERS, JJ. |
| Citation | 806 So.2d 1148 |
| Parties | Larry SMITH, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-CP-00221-COA.,2001-CP-00221-COA. |
| Decision Date | 15 January 2002 |
806 So.2d 1148
Larry SMITH, Appellantv.
STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
No. 2001-CP-00221-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
January 15, 2002.
Office of the Attorney General by Jean Smith Vaughan, for Appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, and MYERS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Larry Smith, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Scott County, Mississippi denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Smith perfected this appeal, raising seven issues as
THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING SMITH'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. On February 11, 1997, Smith pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery of male children under the age of fourteen. The plea was accepted as validly made by the Honorable Marcus Gordon. Smith was sentenced to a term of fifteen years on each count with the sentences to run consecutively. Smith later filed a motion for production of records and transcripts in the Circuit Court of Scott County and then a writ of mandamus in the same court. He also filed a motion for appointment of counsel, presumably for the purpose of filing for post-conviction relief, which was denied. Smith filed a petition for post-conviction relief on July 7, 2000, with the Circuit Court of Scott County. The Honorable Vernon Cotten denied this motion.
ANALYSIS
¶ 3. In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief the standard of review is clear. The trial court's denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d 565, 567 (Miss.1999).
DID THE LOWER COURT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING SMITH'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF?
¶ 4. Smith claims that he was denied his privilege against self-incrimination, that he did not receive due process of law, that he was unreasonably searched, that his right to confront witnesses was denied, and his right to demur to the indictment was violated. All of these assertions fail due to the fact that Smith waived all such rights when he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently pled guilty. Like the petitioner in McMillian v. State, 774 So.2d 454, 458 (Miss.Ct.App.2000), Smith waived his constitutional rights by pleading guilty. Further, our supreme court has explained that:
[T]here are only two exceptions to the rule that entry of a guilty plea waives defects. Those exceptions being if the indictment does not contain an essential element of the crime, or if there is no subject matter jurisdiction.
Banana v. State, 635 So.2d 851, 853 (Miss. 1994). Our supreme court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. State, 2007-CP-02071-COA.
...not disturb a circuit court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief unless the decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). "A [circuit] court may dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief `if it plainly appears from the face of the......
-
Noel v. State, No. 2005-CA-01455-COA.
...denial of a motion for post-conviction relief absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. See Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). Additionally, Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 8.04 states that "it is within the discretion of the co......
-
Sandlin v. State, NO. 2019-CA-00282-COA, 2012-KA-00258-SCT
...post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous." Smith v. State , 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). "However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo." Brown v. State , 731 So......
-
Baker v. State, No. 2003-KA-02137-COA.
...lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Holifield v. State, 852 So.2d 653, 657(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003) (quoting Banana); Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (same). "Traditionally, time and place have been viewed as not requiring considerable specificity because the......
-
Oliver v. State, 2007-CP-02071-COA.
...not disturb a circuit court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief unless the decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). "A [circuit] court may dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief `if it plainly appears from the face of the......
-
Noel v. State, No. 2005-CA-01455-COA.
...denial of a motion for post-conviction relief absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. See Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2002). Additionally, Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 8.04 states that "it is within the discretion of the co......
-
Sandlin v. State, 2019-CA-00282-COA, 2012-KA-00258-SCT
...post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous." Smith v. State , 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). "However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo." Brown v. State , 731 So......
-
Baker v. State, No. 2003-KA-02137-COA.
...lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Holifield v. State, 852 So.2d 653, 657(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003) (quoting Banana); Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (same). "Traditionally, time and place have been viewed as not requiring considerable specificity because the......