Larod M. Gross v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-CP-01685-COA
LAROD M. GROSS A/K/A LAROD MONTRELL
GROSS A/K/A LAROD MONTERLL GROSS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
8/5/2005
HON. ANN H. LAMAR
PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LAROD M. GROSS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JACOB RAY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 10/31/2006
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., SOUTHWICK AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
SOUTHWICK, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Larod Gross pled guilty to the crimes of armed robbery and aggravated assault in 2003. In
2005 he filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly
entered. We agree with the trial court that there is no evidence of that defect. We affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
Gross admitted to entering a grocery store in Panola County, Mississippi, armed with a
shotgun. Gross admitted that while he was in the store, he robbed a clerk and one patron. Gross
admitted to shooting off the hand of a second patron in the store. Gross pled guilty to two counts
of armed robbery, for which he was sentenced to eight years for each count, and to aggravated
assault, for which he was sentenced to twenty years. All sentences were to run consecutively. At
the time of entering his plea, Gross was nineteen years of age.
DISCUSSION
¶3.
Gross argues that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered because he is unable
to read. Gross claims that he did not understand his plea even though his attorney read the plea to
him. In support of his argument, Gross cites one case that has no relevance to his situation. Irving
v. Breazeale, 400 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1968) (affirming the denial of motion for writ of habeas corpus
which asserted constitutional violations regarding a confession to murder). Gross attaches to his
petition various grade school assessments indicating that he had substantially deficient academic
skills. Gross reasons that he should have another day in court due to being on drugs while the crime
was committed and due to his low intelligence level.
¶4.
A trial court may summarily dismiss a post-conviction relief motion if “it plainly appears
from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the proper proceedings in the case that the
movant is not entitled to any relief. . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 2005). That is what
the trial court in this instance determined it should do.
¶5.
The standard of competency to enter a plea of guilty is the same as the competency to stand
trial. Magee v. State, 752 So. 2d 1100, 1102 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Godinez v. Moran, 509
U.S. 389, 399 (1993)). That standard requires a “rational understanding of the charges against him
and the ability to assist his lawyer in preparing his defense.” Id. at 1102.
¶6.
Gross represented to the court both in his petition and at the hearing that he could read and
write. The trial judge conducted a hearing in which Gross was explained his constitutional rights,
the crimes for which he was entering a plea of guilty, and the maximum and minimum punishment
he could receive for each crime. Gross communicated to the judge that he understood everything
2
that was explained to him and that he wanted to enter a plea of guilty to charges against him. The
judge was aware that Gross was on drugs when the crime was committed. Even though Gross claims
to have lied to the judge in stating that he was able to read and understand the plea petition, he
admits in his argument that his attorney explained the petition to him. The prosecutor recited the
events for which Gross was being charged, and Gross told the judge that he did not disagree with
anything that was said.
¶7.
The sworn answers Gross gave during the plea hearing demonstrate that he understood the
charges against him, his constitutional rights, and the punishment he could receive for the crimes he
committed. Gross voluntarily and knowingly entered his guilty plea. The trial court committed no
error in dismissing the motion for post-conviction relief.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO PANOLA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., 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.