Curtis Hinton v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-01003-COA
CURTIS HINTON
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
05/23/2001
HON. JOHN M. MONTGOMERY
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
FORREST ALLGOOD
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED.
AFFIRMED - 03/19/2002
4/9/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On February 16, 1999, Curtis Hinton was indicted for false pretenses. Hinton pled guilty before the
Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Mississippi. He was sentenced to one year in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections to be served consecutively with a previously imposed sentence.
¶2. On April 4, 2001, Hinton filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging a violation of his constitutional
right to a speedy trial. The motion was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the dismissal, Hinton filed
this appeal alleging that he was denied the right to a speedy trial and therefore, his sentence should be
vacated.
¶3. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶4. On November 28, 1998, Hinton presented a personal check in the amount of $254.51 to a
convenience store clerk in Lowndes County, Mississippi. On February 16, 1999, he was indicted for false
pretenses by a Lowndes County Grand Jury. Hinton pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to one
year in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections to be served consecutively with a
previously imposed sentence.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
¶5. Hinton argues on appeal that the trial court should have dismissed the false pretenses indictment sua
sponte because his constitutional right had allegedly been violated. He argues that the court erred in
accepting the guilty plea and sentencing him to one year in the Mississippi Department of Corrections
because the State failed to prosecute him within two hundred seventy days as required by Miss. Code Ann.
§ 99-17-1.
¶6. The facts of this case are directly on point with that of Rowe v. State, 735 So. 2d 399 (Miss. 1999). In
Rowe, the defendant pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to eighteen years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. Id. at (¶1). Rowe filed a motion for post-conviction relief and
argued that sentence should be vacated because the State failed to prosecute him within two hundred
seventy days as required by law. Id. at (¶2).
¶7. The court found that Rowe's petition had been properly dismissed by virtue of his guilty plea. Id. at (¶5)
. "This court has found that a guilty plea waives the right to a speedy trial, whether that right is of
constitutional or statutory origin." Id. at (¶3); Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390, 391-92 (Miss. 1991). In
Anderson, the court stated that a valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional rights or defects which are
incidental to trial, including the right to a speedy trial as secured by the Constitution of the United States and
the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. Anderson, 577 So. 2d at 391-92. "We take this opportunity to
specifically include in that class of waivable or forfeitable rights, the right to a speedy trial whether of
constitutional or statutory origin." Id.
¶8. It is the opinion of this Court that Hinton's petition for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed by
the trial court.
¶9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES
COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, MYERS AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
