Dimera Smith v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-00050-COA
DIMERA SMITH
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
11/14/2000
HON. FRANK A. RUSSELL
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
ROWLAND GEDDIE
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
SUMMARY DENIAL OF MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED - 09/18/01
10/15/2001; denied 1/29/2002
2/19/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Dimera Smith, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Smith perfected this appeal, raising the following issue as
error:
I. SMITH WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
FACTS
¶2. On November 27, 1997, Smith pled guilty to aggravated assault for shooting Charlie Dilworth as well
as shooting into another person's occupied dwelling. Smith was born on February 28, 1983, which made
him fourteen at the time he pled guilty. Smith acknowledged knowing the twenty year maximum sentence for
aggravated assault and ten year maximum sentence for shooting into an occupied dwelling. Smith pled guilty
as part of a favorable plea bargain agreement negotiated on his behalf by his counsel. Smith stated on the
record and under oath that he was satisfied with the services and counsel of his attorney. Smith was
sentenced to serve a twenty year sentence with twelve and a half years suspended for the aggravated
assault offense. Smith was sentenced to a concurrent ten year sentence with two and a half years suspended
for shooting into an occupied dwelling.
¶3. On June 21, 2000, Smith filed a motion for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel due to the fact that his trial counsel had not asked the trial court for alternative sentences in
consideration of his youth. On November 14, 2000, the trial court denied relief, finding that Smith had not
met his burden for establishing any ineffective assistance of counsel claim. It is from that denial that Smith
now appeals.
ANALYSIS
¶4. 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).
I. WAS SMITH DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
¶5. Smith's claim is addressed under a two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984), and followed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Stringer v. State, 454 So. 2d 468,
476 (Miss. 1984). A successful completion of this test is paramount to Smith's argument. He must
successfully meet both prongs. Under Strickland and Stringer, Smith must show that the counsel's
performance was so deficient that it constituted prejudice. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. The asserting party
must also show that "but for his attorney's errors, there is a reasonable probability that he would have
received a different result in the trial court." Rankin v. State, 636 So. 2d 652, 656 (Miss. 1994). The
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that both prongs have been met. Leatherwood v. State, 473
So. 2d 964, 968 (Miss. 1985).
¶6. Additionally, there is a strong but rebuttable presumption that an attorney's performance falls within a
wide range of reasonable professional assistance and that the decisions made by trial counsel are strategic.
Vielee v. State, 653 So. 2d 920, 922 (Miss. 1995). Application of the Strickland test is applied with
deference to counsel's performance, considering the totality of the circumstances to determine whether
counsel's actions were both deficient and prejudicial. Conner v. State, 684 So. 2d 608, 610 (Miss. 1996).
The test is to be applied to the overall performance of the attorney. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695. With
respect to the overall performance of the attorney, "counsel's choice of whether or not to file certain
motions, call witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections fall within the ambit of trial
strategy." Scott v. State, 742 So. 2d 1190 (¶ 14) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999); Cole v. State, 666 So. 2d 767,
777 (Miss. 1995); Murray v. Maggio, 736 F.2d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1984). With this in mind, we now turn
to Smith's allegations of ineffectiveness.
¶7. In the case at hand, Smith's attorney in trial court successfully negotiated for a partially suspended
sentence, whereby Smith was only required to serve seven and a half years rather than the thirty year
maximum sentence.
¶8. Furthermore, Smith did not qualify for sentencing as a juvenile. This is established by statute:
Any act attempted or committed by a child with the use of a deadly weapon, the carrying of which
concealed is prohibited by section 97-37-1, or a shotgun or a rifle, which would be a felony if
committed by an adult, will be in the original jurisdiction of the circuit court.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-151 (1)(B) (Rev. 2000). A trial court has the authority to sentence a defendant
as an adult when he is convicted of a crime in circuit court. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-159. Both crimes
that Smith pled guilty to fell into the "deadly weapon" category as set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-151
(1)(B) (Rev. 2000), therefore, the circuit court had original jurisdiction of the case and had the authority to
sentence Smith as an adult. Neither prong of the Strickland test is met in the case at hand.
¶9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
LEE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR. BRANTLEY, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
