Bruce Switzer v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00243-COA
BRUCE SWITZER
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
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:
01/31/2002
HON. JOSEPH H. LOPER JR.
GRENADA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRUCE SWITZER (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
DOUG EVANS
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
AFFIRMED - 10/22/2002
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Bruce Switzer, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Grenada County, Mississippi, denying
his petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Switzer asserts the following issues on appeal:
I. SWITZER'S GUILTY PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARILY AND UNINTELLIGENTLY
MADE DUE TO A FATALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT.
II. SWITZER WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE
WAS ALLOWED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT AND HIS
COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT.
Finding no error, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶2. On January 31, 2001, Bruce Switzer pled guilty to a three-count indictment for possession of marijuana
with enhancement for a repeat offense, possession of cocaine with enhancement for a repeat offense, and
possession of a rifle by a previously convicted felon. Switzer was represented by R. T. Laster, Jr. With
Laster's assistance, Switzer filled out and filed a petition to enter a guilty plea that included the reduced
sentence Switzer would receive as a result of a plea bargain agreement negotiated by Laster as well as
Switzer's admitting that he was guilty of the three offenses with which he was charged.
¶3. At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court advised and questioned Switzer about his understanding of the
constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Switzer testified under oath that he understood the
three charges under the indictment, the elements of the offense, and possible defenses. He also testified that
he understood the maximum sentences for the offenses, and that he had not been coerced or promised
anything in exchange for his pleas and that he was completely satisfied with the services of his counsel. The
court accepted Switzer's guilty pleas as freely and voluntarily entered. Although the maximum sentences
were a forty-eight and thirty-six year enhanced sentence, Switzer received twenty years with five years
suspended along with two concurrent five and three year sentences as stated in his plea bargain agreement.
On January 24, 2002, Switzer filed for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied Switzer relief and he
appealed to this Court.
ANALYSIS
I. WAS SWITZER'S GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARILY AND UNINTELLIGENTLY
MADE DUE TO A FATALLY DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT?
¶4. Switzer argues that his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently entered because his indictment
was fatally defective. Switzer claims that his indictment violated the McNeal v. State, 658 So. 2d 1345,
1351 (Miss. 1995) precedent under Article 6, § 169 of the Mississippi Constitution. In McNeal, a habitual
offender sentence was overturned because it did not comply with Article 6, § 169 of the Mississippi
Constitution, which states that "all indictments shall conclude 'against the peace and dignity of the state.'"
McNeal, 658 So. 2d at 1351.
¶5. The trial court found no violation of Article 6, § 169 of the constitution because each of the three counts
against Switzer, including the final count, concluded with the phrase "against the peace and dignity of the
state of Mississippi." The trial court's order stated that although the phrase did not need to be used at the
end of the first and second counts, this did not invalidate the indictment. The trial court found that since the
last count ended with the correct phrase, the constitutional requirements were met. Switzer argues that the
phrase's use at the end of the first count of the indictment concluded the indictment, and anything after the
first count was therefore invalid. Switzer's argument, however, is not supported by case law.
¶6. In Starling v. State, 90 Miss. 255, 256 (1907), 43 So. 952, 953, the Mississippi Supreme Court held
that the words "against the peace and dignity of the state of Mississippi" are only required to appear at the
conclusion of the indictment, but their inclusion in every count is only "the merest tautology." Starling, 90
Miss. at 256, 43 So. at 953. In both Peacock v. State, 783 So. 2d 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000), and
Evans v. State, 742 So. 2d 1205 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), this Court held that ending each count of an
indictment with "against the peace and dignity of the state of Mississippi" did not invalidate the indictment.
Peacock, 783 So. 2d at (¶14); Evans v. State, 742 So. 2d at (¶14).
¶7. This issue is without merit.
II. WAS SWITZER DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HE
WAS ALLOWED TO PLEAD GUILTY TO A DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT AND HIS
COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT?
¶8. Switzer argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was allowed to plead
guilty to a defective indictment and his counsel failed to object to the indictment. As stated above, Switzer is
incorrect in his assertion that the indictment was defective because each count ended with the phrase
"against the peace and dignity of the state of Mississippi." Switzer has therefore failed to show that his
counsel's performance was deficient, the first prong of the Strickland test used to examine ineffective
assistance of counsel claims in Mississippi. Mohr v. State, 584 So. 2d 426, 430 (Miss. 1991) (citing
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)). This issue is therefore without merit.
¶9. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GRENADA COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO GRENADA COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER 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.
