Thomas v. State, 2014–CP–00673–COA.
Decision Date | 30 June 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 2014–CP–00673–COA.,2014–CP–00673–COA. |
Citation | 169 So.3d 978 |
Parties | Alvin THOMAS III, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Alvin Thomas III, appellant, pro se.
Office of the Attorney General by Jeffrey A. Klingfuss, attorney for appellee.
Before IRVING, P.J., ROBERTS and MAXWELL, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Following the entry of Alvin Thomas III's guilty plea to one count of armed robbery and sentence of thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with twenty-five years to serve and five years of post-release supervision (PRS), Thomas filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) on March 4, 2014. The circuit court summarily dismissed Thomas's motion, and Thomas appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. A grand jury indicted Thomas on four counts of burglary of a dwelling and one count of armed robbery, all stemming from incidents that occurred in November 2011. Thomas elected to enter an open plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery. The four remaining counts of burglary of a dwelling were dismissed. The Pearl River County Circuit Court accepted Thomas's guilty plea on July 8, 2013, and it sentenced Thomas, on July 19, 2013, to thirty years in the custody of the MDOC, with twenty-five years to serve and five years of PRS.
¶ 3. Thomas filed his PCR motion on March 4, 2014, which the circuit court summarily dismissed on April 21, 2014. Thomas appeals, and he raises the following issues on appeal:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 4. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–39–11(2) (Supp.2014) authorizes a trial court to summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits[,] and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief [.]” Therefore, unless the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, we will not disturb the findings on appeal. Carroll v. State, 120 So.3d 471, 473 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 8) (Miss.2008) ). Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard. Russell v. State, 73 So.3d 542, 544 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) ).
ANALYSIS
¶ 5. The full extent of Thomas's first issue is as follows:
¶ 6. As is apparent, Thomas has not complied with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6), which requires that the appellant's brief “contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” Because Thomas has not provided this Court with a cohesive argument or explanation of this issue, including proper and relevant citations, we decline to address this issue on appeal. See Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss.1996) ; Turner v. State, 962 So.2d 691, 697 (¶ 27) (Miss.Ct.App.2007).
¶ 7. Thomas next argues that his constitutional rights were violated in several ways. First, he argues that his constitutional rights were violated because his guilty plea was involuntary, as he was not advised that he had the right to call witnesses at trial or that he would have an attorney at trial. This issue is without merit. Thomas was informed, at his guilty-plea hearing and in his guilty-plea petition, that he would have the right to call witnesses at trial. Thomas's guilty-plea petition also explained that if he elected to go to trial, he would have “[t]he right to have an attorney at all proceedings [,] and if [he could] not afford an attorney, [he had] the right to have one appointed to represent [him] at all stages of this charge....”
¶ 8. Great weight is given to statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roberts v. State
...again answered, "Yes, sir." This Court holds that "[g]reat weight is given to statements made under oath and in open court ...." Thomas v. State , 169 So. 3d 978, 981 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). Therefore, Roberts waived any claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. ¶25. Roberts also did......
-
Harris v. State
...is not an oral statement, it is a sworn document presumptively prepared with an appreciation of its fateful consequences." Thomas v. State , 169 So. 3d 978, 981 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotation mark omitted).¶29. Even if Harris' version of events is accurate, he had the option......