Charles Bean v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-CP-00805-COA
CHARLES BEAN
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF 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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/13/2004
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHARLES BEAN (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
FOREST ALLGOOD
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
TRIAL COURT DENIED POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF.
AFFIRMED - 05/09/2006
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ROBERTS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On July 15, 2004, in the Clay County Circuit Court, Charles Bean pled guilty to grand larceny
and sale of cocaine. Bean was sentenced to serve five years on the grand larceny charge and ordered
to pay $750 in restitution. Bean was also sentenced to serve seventeen years on the sale of cocaine
charge with five years’ post-release supervision and a fine of $5,000. Both the five year sentence
and the seventeen year sentence are to be served concurrently in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. We note that a number of other charges were retired to Bean’s file in
return for his guilty plea on the grand larceny and sale of cocaine charges.
¶2.
Subsequently, Bean filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that it was not entered
voluntarily and intelligently. After reviewing the file and pleadings, the trial court found Bean’s
argument to be without merit and denied his motion. During this time, Bean also filed a petition for
a sentence reduction. Just two days after ruling on Bean’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the
trial court reviewed the petition, finding that the “motion is a subsequent filing which the previous
filing was ruled upon by this Court.” The trial court dismissed the sentence reduction petition as a
frivolous filing.
¶3.
Bean now appeals to this Court stating that his plea was not voluntarily and intelligently
entered because he was in jail when the crimes allegedly occurred. Finding no merit, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
The standard of review for a denial of a post-conviction motion is well-stated. The findings
of the trial court must be clearly erroneous in order to overturn a lower court's denial of a
post-conviction relief motion. McClinton v. State, 799 So. 2d 123, 126 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
DISCUSSION
¶5.
In his only issue on appeal, Bean asserts that his guilty plea was not entered into voluntarily
or intelligently because he was in jail when the crimes charged were committed. We first note that
it is Bean’s duty to justify his arguments of error with a proper record, which does not include mere
assertions in his brief. Am. Fire Prot., Inc. v. Lewis, 653 So. 2d 1387, 1390 (Miss. 1995). Facts
alleged to exist by Bean must be proved and placed before this Court by a certified record as required
by law; otherwise, we cannot know of their existence. Phillips v. State, 421 So. 2d 476, 478 (Miss.
2
1982). Bean alleges that he was in jail when the crimes were committed; however, there is nothing
in the record to support this allegation nor is there a copy of the indictment contained in the record.
¶6.
The only helpful document in the record is a transcript of the plea colloquy wherein Bean
admits that he committed the crimes to which he pled guilty. “Great weight is given to statements
made under oath and in open court during sentencing.” Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (¶12)
(Miss. 1999). We find no merit in this issue; thus, we affirm.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO CLAY COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS,
BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
