Young v. State
| Decision Date | 03 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46807,46807 |
| Citation | 264 So.2d 821 |
| Parties | William Boyd YOUNG v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, John C. Wheeless, Jr., G. Gilmore Martin, Vicksburg, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court of Warren County denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant.
During the November, 1969, term of the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary and was sentenced to serve a term of 6 years in the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pro se, on March 7, 1971, alleging that he was denied his constitutional rights to assistance of counsel, and to compulsory process for the securing of witnesses for his trial.
After the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed and before a trial on the petition, a psychiatric examination was conducted at Mississippi State Hospital, Whitfield, Mississippi. It was the unanimous opinion of the staff that appellant was without psychosis and that his I.Q. was 67 which is within the mild retarded range of I.Q. The staff was of the opinion that appellant might actually function at a somewhat higher level but due to his resistance to psychological tests, his I.Q. may have been lowered somewhat.
The record of appellant's guilty plea and waiver of counsel made at the November, 1969 term of the court is not complete. The circuit judge, during the interrogation of the defendant, with reference to change of plea and waiver of counsel, noticed that the court reporter was not taking down all the proceedings. He instructed the reporter to take down the statements made to the defendant and the answers of the defendant, but did not begin anew his explanation to the defendant of his rights. This case is controlled by Alexander v. State, 226 So.2d 905 (Miss.1969) and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In Alexander, supra, this Court stated:
The trial court should not accept a guilty plea or a change from a not guilty to a guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. A transcript or record of that proceeding is essential. However, this does not preclude other types of clear and convincing evidence which shows that accused voluntarily and understandingly elected to plead guilty. Anything else is insufficient to establish waiver. In short, a record should be made of what transpires at the pleading stage, which is sufficient to support the acceptance by the trial court of the guilty plea and to reflect that it was made voluntarily and understandingly by the defendant. (226 So.2d at 909.) (Emphasis added.)
in the absence of a complete record of the waiver of counsel and change of plea the evidence is not clear and convincing that the accused voluntarily and understandingly waived assistance of counsel and elected to plead guilty. As heretofore noted, appellant's I.Q. was within the mild retarded range and when dealing with persons of sub-standard mentality the Court should be especially careful to ascertain that such persons understand their rights. The explanation should be in terms simple enough to be understood by a defendant.
Alexander, supra, also held: 'In several cases this Court has placed the affirmative duty upon the state to show an intelligent and competent waiver of counsel.' Conn v. State, 251 Miss. 488, 170 So.2d 20 (1964), Clarke v. State, 251 Miss. 627, 170 So.2d 575 (1965), and Bruno v. Cook, Superintendent of State Penitentiary, 224 So.2d 567 (Miss.1969).
We stated further in Alexander, supra, the following:
These cases established in this jurisdiction a requirement that before a defendant can be tried for a felony without counsel, there must be an intelligent and competent waiver, and that this must be evidenced affirmatively by a record or transcript of the trial judge's interrogation of the defendant, precedent to his determination that there was a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel. (226 So.2d at 908.)
The State of Mississippi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reaves
...colloquy to assure his plea of guilty is a voluntary and intelligent waiver of his rights within the meaning of Boykin. Young v. State, 264 So.2d 821 (Miss.1972); see also Alexander v. State, 226 So.2d 905 25. Missouri. Rule 25.04, Mo.R.Crim.P., requires the court to determine the voluntary......
-
Sanders v. State, 54210
...See Edwards v. Thigpen, supra, Watts v. Lucas, 394 So.2d 903 (Miss.1981); Nelson v. Tullos; State v. Nicholson, supra; Young v. State, 264 So.2d 821 (Miss.1972); Allred v. State, supra. Cf. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).2 It is critical to kee......
-
Nelson v. Tullos, 48800
...or by a court lacking jurisdiction. Keller v. Romero, supra at 482; State v. Ridinger, 279 So.2d 618, 619 (Miss.1973); Young v. State, 264 So.2d 821, 823 (Miss.1972); Ledbetter v. Bishop, 210 So.2d 880, 882 (Miss.1968); Allred v. State, 187 So.2d 28, 30-31 (Miss.1966); Mississippi Code Anno......
-
Phillips v. State
...with the Boykin rights the case must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Young v. State, 264 So.2d 821 (Miss.1972). Reversed and All the Judges concur. ...