Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 96-CA-00562-SCT ALBERT LEWIS WATTS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A DATE OF JUDGMENT: TRIAL JUDGE: COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: 10/11/95 HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS CLARKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT PRO SE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: WAYNE SNUGGS BY: BILLY L. GORE BILBO MITCHELL CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED - 10/23/97 11/13/97

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: NATURE OF THE CASE: DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE PRATHER, P.J., BANKS AND McRAE, JJ. BANKS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

This appeal challenges a lower court's denial of the appellant's request for post-conviction relief, assigning as error ineffective assistance of counsel, involuntary and unintelligent guilty pleas, and the denial of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We find that most of the claims asserted by the appellant are procedurally barred, and those claims that are properly before this Court lack merit. As such, we affirm the lower court's denial of the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief. I. On December 16, 1992, the Circuit Court of Clarke County convened to select a jury in cause number 7169, in which the appellant, Albert Lewis Watts (Watts) stood charged with the robbery of

a convenience store. In addition, Watts was charged with burglary of a storehouse in cause number 7291. After the voir dire of the jury, the trial court was informed that Watts wished to enter guilty pleas on both charges pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the State. The trial court then held a lengthy discussion with Watts to ensure that he was entering his guilty pleas freely, voluntarily, and intelligently. During the plea colloquy, the judge meticulously informed Watts of his rights, including the right to a speedy trial. Also, on more than one occasion, the trial court told Watts to ask questions if there was anything that he did not understand. After the judge went over each of Watts' rights, Watts informed the court that he still wished to plead guilty. He also confessed that he committed the offenses as alleged in the indictment. At the conclusion of the discussion, the trial court found that Watts was pleading guilty freely, voluntarily, and intelligently, and therefore sentenced him according to the agreement, which provided that Watts be imprisoned for fifteen years without parole for the robbery and seven years without parole, to be served concurrently, for the burglary. On September 06, 1995, Watts filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence. In the motion, Watts requested that the lower court of Clarke County provide him an evidentiary hearing on certain issues, among which were: (1) the alleged denial of effective assistance of counsel due to counsel's failure to have the robbery indictment dismissed as it violated his right to a fast and speedy trial and counsel's advice that Watts plead guilty to a crime that he did not commit and (2) the denial of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. On October 16, 1995, the circuit court denied the motion, finding that Watts swore under oath that he waived all claims to a speedy trial; that he was satisfied with the services and performances of his attorney; and that he had, in fact, committed the crimes of robbery and burglary of a storehouse. On May 13, 1996, Watts filed what appeared to be untimely notice of appeal. However in a letter dated April 23, 1996, the circuit judge of Clarke County explained that his order denying Watts' petition, dated October 16, 1995, had not been properly filed and mailed to Watts due to no fault of Watts. Thus, the circuit judge asked that Watts' notice of appeal be granted, as it was. Then on September 03, 1996, this Court received from Watts a "Motion to Stop Proceedings on Appeal and Allow the Appellant to File an Amendment to His Post Conviction Motion in the Circuit Court of Clark (sic) County, Miss." In this motion, Watts requested that we allow him to amend his petition for post-conviction relief, stating that due to "inadequate assistance" of "law library writ-writers" he failed to urge several claims. We denied the motion. Watts now appeals the lower court's decision. II. Watts presently alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He points to several allegedly deficient actions by his attorney in support of this assignment of error, including (1) the failure to file a motion to dismiss the charges against him for lack of a fast and speedy trial; (2) the failure to have the indictment dismissed as the State failed to bring him to trial within the two-year statute of limitations under Miss. Code Ann.

Download Albert Lewis Watts v. State of Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law