guilty plea hearing in Mississippi

2004This Court has held that "[w]hen the record contains pleadings that are in direct conflict with the transcript derived from the guilty plea hearing, a petition for post-conviction relief is properly dismissed." Martin v. State, 749 So.2d 375, 378 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). ¶ 13.

2002"When the record contains pleadings that are in direct conflict with the transcript derived from the guilty plea hearing, a petition for post-conviction relief is properly dismissed." Martin v. State, 749 So.2d 375, 378 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999).

2002Ford v. State, 708 So.2d 73, 75-6 (¶¶ 11-12) (Miss.1998).

2001Our Supreme Court has stated, "Where pleadings are in direct *603 conflict with the guilty plea hearing transcript, a petition for post-conviction relief is properly dismissed." Ford v. State, 708 So.2d 73 (¶ 17) (Miss.1998). ¶ 10.

2006"Trial judges are entitled to place great weight upon a defendant's initial plea under oath." Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764, 767 (¶ 10) (Miss.1998).

2000Templeton v. State, 725 So.2d 764, 767 (Miss.1998). ¶ 11.

2023Ct. App. 2002)). ¶12. “[N]o hearing is required when, based on the record of the guilty plea hearing, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Crockett, 334 So. 3d at 1240-41 (¶26) (quoting Bias v. State, 245 So. 3d 534, 539 (¶17) (Miss.

2022Moreover, “no hearing is required when, based on the record of the guilty plea hearing, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Bias v. State, 245 So. 3d 534, 539 (¶17) (Miss.

2022Further, this Court “gives great weight to the statements made under oath during a guilty plea hearing.” Russell, 44 So. 3d at 435 (¶15). ¶13.

2021Notably, this Court “gives great weight to the statements made under oath during a guilty plea hearing.” Russell, 44 So. 3d at 435 (¶15). ¶7.

2009The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the court is not limited to the transcript of the guilty plea hearing; rather, the court is allowed to "review the record as a whole." Boddie v. State, 875 So.2d 180, 183 (¶ 8) (Miss.2004) *1177 (citing Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993)). ¶ 24.

2009The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the court is not limited to the transcript of the guilty plea hearing; rather, the court is allowed to “review the record as a whole.” Boddie v. State, 875 So.2d 180, 183 (¶ 8) (Miss.2004) (citing Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993)). ¶24.

2014Brown v. State, 533 So.2d 1118, 1124 (Miss.1988).

2009Brown v. State, 533 So.2d 1118, 1124 (Miss.1988).

2011Jackson v. State, 506 So.2d 994, 994-95 (Miss.1987) ("Jackson I ”). 4 .The UPCCRA was enacted on April 17, 1984.

2007Jackson v. State, 506 So. 2d 994, 994-95 (Miss. 1987) (“Jackson I”). 3 (citing Odom v. State, 483 So. 2d 343 (Miss. 1986)).4 Therefore, we found that the trial court clearly was in error for applying the time bar to Jackson.

2010See Sanchez v. State, 913 So.2d 1024, 1027 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1123 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 16.

2008See Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122-23 (¶ 10) (Miss. 1999) (“[Wjhere an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.”) (citations omitted). 2 Moreover, during the guilty plea hearing, Davis acknowledged that he was satisfied with the performance of his lawyer.

2010See Sanchez v. State, 913 So.2d 1024, 1027 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1123 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 16.

2008Plummer v. State, 966 So.2d 186, 191 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) ("We give `[g]reat weight . . . to statements made under oath and in open court during sentencing.'" (quoting Sanchez v. State, 913 So.2d 1024, 1027 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.

2009The supreme court reached its decision after finding that “[w]hile the transcript of the guilty plea hearing con-tainted] no specific reference to a factual basis for the charge of transfer of cocaine, Boddie made a statement, which the trial court ruled to be admissible, in which he admitted to the crime alleged in the indictment.” Id. at 183 (¶ 8).

2009The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the court is not limited to the transcript of the guilty plea hearing; rather, the court is allowed to “review the record as a whole.” Boddie v. State, 875 So.2d 180, 183 (¶ 8) (Miss.2004) (citing Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 106 (Miss.1993)). ¶24.

2008Id.; Barnes v. State, 937 So.2d 1006, 1009 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006).

2008Barnes v. State, 937 So.2d 1006, 1009 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006); Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-19(1) (Rev.2007).

2007See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 682 So.2d 359, 364 (Miss.1996) (holding that defendants claim of involuntary plea was properly dismissed without an evidentiary hearing where his assertions that he did not understand the charges against him and the "trial process" were refuted by his sworn testimony at the plea hearing); Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995) (holding summary dismissal proper where plea hearing transcript showed that defendant was advised of the rights of which he later claimed to be unaware); Harveston v. State, 597 So.2d 641, 643 (Miss.1992) (concluding that defendant's

2007See Harveston v. State, 597 So.2d 641, 643 (Miss.1992); Houston, 461 So.2d at 722-24 ; Martin v. State, 749 So.2d 375, 378 (9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999).

2022Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Pepper v. State, 96 So. 3d 780, 785 (¶15) (Miss.

2017If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the judge shall make such disposition of the motion as justice shall require. "[N]o hearing is required when, based on the record of the guilty plea hearing, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to no relief." Pepper v. State , 96 So.3d 780 , 785 (¶ 15) (Miss.

2010This record includes an "Order of Conviction” that generally addresses each of the Cobb factors in imposing the banishment condition, see Means, 43 So.3d at 464-65 , and fails to include the transcript of the guilty plea hearing and/or sentencing hearing, or perhaps other relevant evidence.

2010See id. at 1169 (Randolph, J., dissenting). [5] This record includes an "Order of Conviction" that generally addresses each of the Cobb factors in imposing the banishment condition, see Means, 43 So.3d at 464-65, and fails to include the transcript of the guilty plea hearing and/or sentencing hearing, or perhaps other relevant evidence.

2024Id. at 624 (¶¶9-11) (citing Banana v. State, 638 So. 2d 1329, 1330-31 (Miss. 1994)).

2024Id. at 624 (¶¶9-11) (citing Banana v. State, 638 So. 2d 1329, 1330-31 (Miss. 1994)).

2023Id. at 1113 (¶¶3-4).

2022Accordingly, we find that this allegation is without merit.” Id.; see also Mayhan v. State, 26 So. 3d 1072, 1076 (¶13) (Miss.

2022Further, this Court noted, “Both this Court and our supreme court have held, ‘where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.’” Id. at 1022 (¶22) (emphasis added) (quoting Sandifer v. State, 799 So. 2d 914, 917 (¶8) (Miss.

2021The answers Williams gave during the hearing were given under oath, and the answers found in the guilty plea petition were acknowledged to be true by Williams during the guilty plea hearing, under oath.3 Ford v. State, 911 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (¶6) (Miss.

2017Again, “where an affidavit is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence in the record such as, for example, a transcript or written statements of the affiant to the contrary to the extent that the court can conclude that the affidavit is a sham no hearing is required.” Wright v. State, 577 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 21.

2016This Court previously found in Creppel, 75 So.3d at 1128 (¶ 5), that at the guilty-plea hearing the trial court throughly questioned Creppel “about the events of the crimes and his understanding of the consequences of pleading guilty to the crimes.” We further recognize that “[a] defendant’s valid guilty plea also waives all nonjurisdictional defects or insufficiencies in the indictment.” Scurlock v. State, 147 So.3d 894, 896 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2014). 5 ¶14.

2016Additionally, a trial court “may dismiss a [PCR] motion ... without an evidentiary hearing where 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.” Pickle v. State, 115 So.3d 896, 899 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2013); see *720 Miss.

2016“There are two distinct instances in which a defendant’s ... state of mind may become relevant: (1) at the time of the crime, or (2) at trial or the guilty-plea hearing." Montalto v. State, 119 So.3d 1087, 1093 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App. 2013).

2016This Court previously found in Creppel, 75 So.3d at 1128 (¶ 5), that at the guilty-plea hearing the trial court throughly questioned Creppel “about the events of the crimes and his understanding of the consequences of pleading guilty to the crimes.” We further recognize that “[a] defendant’s valid guilty plea also waives all nonjurisdictional defects or insufficiencies in the indictment.” Scurlock v. State, 147 So.3d 894, 896 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2014). 5 ¶14.