 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rodolfichh v. State10/28/2003
o claims that he was further confused at the sentencing because four or five other persons were sentenced at the same time.
. The trial court evaluated Rodolfich's claims and found them to be without merit. In reviewing a trial court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief, the standard of review is clear. The trial court's denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court's decision was clearly erroneous. Kirksey v. State, 728 So. 2d 565, 567 ( ) ( Miss. 1999); Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
. Rodolfich claims that he did not understand the sentence he would be given when he entered his guilty plea, therefore his guilty plea was not voluntary. The United States Supreme Court case of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969), provides the standard for determining whether a guilty plea is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made by the defendant. This determination of voluntariness may be evaluated by looking to see whether the defendant was advised of the nature of the charges against him, the rights which he would be waiving by pleading guilty, the maximum sentences that he could receive for the crimes with which he was charged and whether he was satisfied with the advice and counsel of his attorney. Alexander v. State, 605 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Miss. 1992). See also Boykin, 395 U.S. at 243; Wilson v. State, 577 So. 2d 394, 396-97 (Miss. 1991).
. Solemn declarations made in open court under the trustworthiness of the official oath carry a strong presumption of verity. Baker v. State, 358 So. 2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978). Not every motion for post-conviction relief filed in the trial court must be given an adversarial hearing. Jones v. State, 795 So. 2d 589, 590 ( ) (Miss. 2001). When a defendant's allegations in a motion for post-conviction relief are complete contradictions of the sworn testimony before the judge at the time of the guilty plea, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing. Taylor v. State, 682 So. 2d 359, 364 (Miss. 1996).
. In this case, there is sufficient evidence in the record by which to determine that Rodolfich understood the consequences of entering a plea of guilty, including the range of the possible sentence to be imposed and the constitutional rights he was giving up. The judge did not need to have an evidentiary hearing for this motion, because there was enough evidence in the record to support its denial. More importantly, Rodolfich presented no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, as in Taylor, the post-conviction relief motion in this case is a complete contradiction of the statements Rodolfich signed under oath at the time of his guilty plea.
. Rodolfich signed under oath a "Petition to Enter a Plea of Guilty." It reads in part:
I know that if I plead "Guilty" to this charge (these charges), the possible sentence in Count 1 is 0 (min) to 5 yrs (max) imprisonment and/or fine in Count 1 $200 (min) to 5,000 (max).
The record further demonstrates that Rodolfich knew that if his probation was revoked, he could be ordered to serve his prison term. Rodolfich also signed a statement saying that he was satisfied with the advice and help of his attorney.
. Even though others were present at the time he received his sentence, Rodolfich was informed of the implications of his guilty plea. As is required by Boykin, the consequences of entering and signing the guilty plea were clearly explained in writing. Rodolfich was fairly and adequately informed of all these things when he signed the plea. Additionally, his lawyer signed a statement which further demonstrates that Rodolfich was informed of the consequences resulting
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|