King v. State, 738 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
King v. State, 738 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2013–2015 · …to determine whether the plea is voluntarily and intelligently given, the trial court must advise the defendant of his rights, the nature of the charge against him, as well as the consequences of the plea. ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
46 citation events (41 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Illya Watkins a/k/a Illya Larue Watkins a/k/a Illya L. Watkins v. State of Mississippi (missctapp, 2023-05-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Illya Watkins a/k/a Illya Larue Watkins a/k/a Illya L. Watkins v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2007) (citing King v. State, 738 So. 2d 240, 240-41 (¶¶4-5) (Miss. 1999); Thornhill v. State, 919 So. 2d 238, 241 (¶16) (Miss.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Robert McMickle v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 119 So.3d 404, 409 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citation omitted) (finding that “[a] valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional rights or defects, including the right to a speedy” and public trial by jury); Joiner v. State, 61 So.3d 156, 158 (¶ 7) (Miss.2011) (citation omitted) (finding “that a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives certain constitutional rights, among them the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to confront and cross-examine the State’s witnesses, the right to a jury trial, and the right to have the State prove each element of the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Antonio Vashon Smith v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A guilty plea will be found valid if it is shown to have been voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough, 9 So.3d at 373 (¶ 11) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 2—3) (Miss.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a guilty plea is valid so long as it was “voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 373 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 3-5) (Miss.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Belton v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a guilty plea is valid so long as it was “voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 373 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶2-3) (Miss.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mooney v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
It is well settled that a guilty plea is valid so long as it was “voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 373 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶ 3-5) (Miss.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Larry v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
It is well-settled that a guilty plea is valid so long as it was “voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 373 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
The Mississippi Supreme Court has previously stated: “A guilty plea will be found valid if it is shown to have been voluntarily and intelligently made by the criminal defendant before the trial court.” Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 373 (¶ 11) (Miss.2009) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buckley v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swilley v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A valid [guilty] plea waives the defendant’s right to make certain constitutional challenges, including those under the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 366 (¶ 5) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶4-5) (Miss.1999)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Grissom v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 [ (¶¶ 2-3) ] (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holder v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Russell v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Mason v. State, 42 So.3d 629, 633 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2010); King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999). *545 So Russell is procedurally barred from his discrepancy-based attack.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ducksworth v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 [ (¶¶ 2-3) ] (Miss.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, it is well settled that “[a] valid guilty plea waives the defendant’s right to make certain constitutional challenges, including those under the Fourth Amendment.” Burns v. State, 984 So.2d 1024, 1025 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 240-41 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burrough v. State
Miss. · 2009 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
A valid guilty plea constitutes a waiver of certain constitutional claims, including illegal search and seizure. *751 King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶4-5) (Miss.1999) (citing Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1018-19 (Miss.1989)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burns v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 240-41 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ealey v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 240 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999); Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1019 (Miss. 1989). ¶ 23.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Christopher Jason Burrough v. State of Mississippi
Miss. · 2006 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So. 2d 240, 241 (Miss. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pevey v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶ 6) (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Young v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Battaya v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gross v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 240 (¶ 5) (Miss.1999); McMillian v. State, 774 So.2d 454, 458 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App. 2000). ¶ 7.
cited Cited as authority (rule) McMillian v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999); Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1018-19 (Miss.1989).
cited Cited "see" Ivy v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999) (finding claim of illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment was waived when defendant pleaded guilty). ¶ 17.
discussed Cited "see" Cavitt v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (Miss.1999); Taylor, 682 So.2d at 363 (both stating that the reviewing court must find that the outcome of the case would have been different but for counsel’s errors). ¶ 14.
cited Cited "see" Peacock v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 242 (Miss.1999) (citing Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1018-19 (Miss.1989)). ¶ 17.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Mason v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Anderson , 577 So.2d at 391— 92; see also King v. State, 738 So.2d 240, 241 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss.1999) (A guilty plea waives allegations of an illegal search and seizure among other constitutional rights).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Michael KING a/k/a Michael Demby King
v.
STATE of Mississippi.
97-CA-01430-SCT.
Mississippi Supreme Court.
Jun 10, 1999.
738 So. 2d 240
1999 WL 374562
En Banc.
Cited by 36 opinions  |  Published

Michael King, Appellant, pro se.

Office of the Attorney General by W. Glenn Watts, Attorney for Appellee.

[*241] EN BANC.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WALLER, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. On December 31, 1998, we issued our per curiam affirmance of the circuit judge's decision in this case. Michael D. King filed a petition in the form of a request for rehearing asking the Court to reconsider its decision to affirm the lower court's denial of post-conviction relief for King. Because we find that the circuit judge committed no error in denying King's motion for post-conviction relief, we deny King's motion for rehearing.

¶ 2. King claims that his guilty plea to the crime of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was involuntary. The record from the proceedings disproves King's claim. King signed under oath a petition to enter a plea of guilty. In that petition he stated that his plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. He acknowledged that he was waiving certain rights by entering his guilty plea. He stated that his lawyer had fully advised him of the charges against him, any possible defenses that he might have had, and the minimum and maximum sentences which could be imposed against him. And he claimed to be satisfied with the representation he received from his attorney. Before accepting his guilty plea, the trial judge asked King if he was guilty of the charge against him. He admitted in open court that he was guilty of possessing the cocaine with the intent to distribute it. He testified that no one had threatened or coerced him in any manner, nor had anyone promised him anything in exchange for his guilty plea. He again stated that he was satisfied with the services of his attorney. After accepting King's guilty plea, the trial judge sentenced King to a term of thirty years. The judge agreed to retire to the files three additional charges against King.

¶ 3. There is nothing in the record to indicate that King's plea was anything other than knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given. King's claim to the contrary is meritless.

¶ 4. King's application for post-conviction relief alleges numerous violations of his constitutional rights. King's constitutional claims include that he was the victim of an illegal search and seizure, that the waiver of indictment was deficient, that his right against self-incrimination was violated, that he was denied the right to confront witnesses, and that the State failed to prove the elements of the offense.

¶ 5. King's valid guilty plea constitutes a waiver of these constitutional rights. Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1018-19 (Miss.1989). By pleading guilty, King voluntarily gave up his right to make certain constitutional challenges. This claim is without merit.

¶ 6. King also alleges that his court-appointed lawyer was ineffective. In order to prevail, King must show (1) that the lawyer's performance was deficient and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced King to the extent that he did not receive a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). King must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for his attorney's mistakes, the outcome would have been different. Chase v. State, 699 So.2d 521, 526-27 (Miss.1997). King has shown no deficient performance by his attorney. The record indicates that King was satisfied with the representation he received. There is no proof whatsoever of any failure on the part of King's counsel. This issue is meritless.

CONCLUSION

¶ 7. For the foregoing reasons we find King's claims to be completely without merit, and we deny King's motion for rehearing.

¶ 8. MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.

[*242] PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, SMITH, MILLS AND COBB, JJ., CONCUR.