Vincent B. Strickland v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-01504-COA
VINCENT B. STRICKLAND
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
08/13/2009
HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM
JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
VINCENT B. STRICKLAND (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
AFFIRMED – 09/14/2010
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
This appeal arises out of Vincent B. Strickland’s motion for post-conviction relief
(PCR), which was filed in the Jones County Circuit Court. After the circuit court summarily
denied his PCR motion, Strickland filed an appeal, alleging the following three contentions
of error, which we quote verbatim: (1) “whether [his] guilty plea was involuntarily,
unknowingly, [and] unintelligently enter [sic] due to wrongful statute citation in criminal
information and not being inform [sic] the correct statute at plea hearing”; (2) “whether
petitioner Strickland had effective counsel[,] being advised to waive indictment rights by
[attorney] for defense”; and (3) “whether [his] sentence was imposed in violation of [the]
Mississippi Constitution and [the] United States Constitution.”
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS
¶3.
An information was filed in this case on July 30, 2007. The information alleged two
counts of criminal conduct–first, possession of methamphetamine, and second, possession
of methamphetamine and cocaine. As statutory support, the information cited section 97-1733 of the Mississippi Code Annotated (Rev. 2006). That section, however, refers to burglary,
which Strickland was not accused of having committed. The same day, a waiver of formal
indictment that Strickland had signed was filed with the circuit court. The waiver averred
that Strickland understood that he was being charged with the crimes of possession of
methamphetamine and possession of cocaine. The waiver further averred that Strickland’s
attorney had “advised [Strickland] as to the nature of the charge[s] against [him]” and “fully
advised [him] of [his] rights . . . .”
¶4.
Strickland’s petition to plead guilty was also filed on July 30, 2007. In it, he indicated
that he was pleading guilty to the crimes of possession of methamphetamine and possession
of cocaine. The petition indicated that Strickland had discussed his case with his attorney
and “believe[d] that [his] lawyer [was] fully informed on all such matters.” The petition
further explained that Strickland was aware of the rights that he was relinquishing by
pleading guilty, including the “right to take the witness stand . . . and, if [he] did not take the
witness stand . . . the jury may be told that this shall not be held against [him].” The petition
2
outlined the potential range of punishment for the crimes that Strickland was pleading guilty
to. In his petition, Strickland averred that: “[I] [b]elieve that my lawyer has done all that
anyone could do to counsel and assist me. I AM SATISFIED WITH THE ADVICE AND
HELP HE HAS GIVEN ME . . . .” In another paragraph, Strickland agreed that: “I OFFER
MY PLEA OF ‘GUILTY’ FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY AND OF MY OWN ACCORD
AND WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THE MATTERS SET FORTH IN THE
INDICTMENT AND IN THIS PETITION . . . .”
¶5.
On July 31, 2007, Strickland pleaded guilty to both counts in open court. The
prosecutor, after explaining the State’s sentencing recommendations, 1 proceeded to explain
the evidentiary basis that the State would present if the case were to go to trial. Strickland
agreed that there was “a legal and factual basis” for the guilty pleas The circuit judge
informed Strickland of his rights were he to go to trial, including his “right to remain silent
and . . . [not] have to prove anything.” After Strickland indicated that he still wished to plead
guilty, the circuit court accepted his pleas.
¶6.
A sentencing order was entered on August 9, 2007, essentially sentencing Strickland
to sixteen years’ imprisonment for the methamphetamine possession and to eight years’
imprisonment for the cocaine possession; both sentences were suspended in their entirety
pending Strickland’s successful completion of one year of house arrest and three years of
post-release supervision. Although it is not clear from the record, Strickland apparently
1
In court, the prosecutor stated that the State’s recommendation was that Strickland
serve half of each of his sentences, with the remainder suspended upon his successful
completion of one year of house arrest and three years of post-release supervision. This is
not consistent with Strickland’s sentence as reflected by the sentencing order and discussed
later in this opinion.
3
violated his house arrest in some way and was subsequently returned to the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections to serve his sentences. Unlike the information, the
sentencing order cited the correct statutory provision for Strickland’s crimes.
¶7.
On August 11, 2009, Strickland filed his PCR motion, wherein he alleged: that the
information that was used to charge him was void as a matter of law, that his waiver of a
formal indictment was invalid, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that his
guilty plea was invalid. Specifically, Strickland claimed that the information that charged
him cited the incorrect statutory provision. As to his attorney, Strickland averred that his
attorney had improperly convinced him to waive his right to a formal indictment. As to the
validity of his guilty plea, Strickland alleged that he had not properly waived his right against
self-incrimination.
Completely absent from the PCR motion was any allegation that
Strickland’s sentence was illegal or otherwise incorrect.
¶8.
On August 13, 2009, the circuit court entered an order summarily denying
Strickland’s PCR motion. In the order, the circuit court noted that Strickland was asked
about his attorney’s performance in open court when he entered his guilty plea, and that
Strickland indicated at that time that he was happy with the services of his attorney. It is
from that denial of his PCR motion that Strickland appeals.
¶9.
Additional facts, as necessary, will be related during our analysis and discussion of
the issues.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
¶10.
In Burrough v. State, 9 So. 3d 368, 371 (¶6) (Miss. 2009), our supreme court
explained the standard of review that Mississippi appellate courts are to use when reviewing
4
the denial of a PCR motion:
[An appellate court] reviews the dismissal of a post-conviction-relief motion
[under] an abuse-of-discretion standard. Billiot v. State, 655 So. 2d 1, 12
(Miss. 1995). The trial court may summarily dismiss a motion for
post-conviction relief “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any
annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not
entitled to any relief.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2007).
1. Incorrect Statute
¶11.
In his first contention of error, Strickland claims that his plea was involuntarily given
because the information that was used to charge him contained the incorrect statutory
provision, and he was not informed of the correct provision in his guilty-plea petition or in
court when he entered his plea of guilty.
¶12.
It is clear in this state that a charging instrument, such as an indictment or an
information, need only serve as “notice of the charges against [a] defendant and the facts
underlying such charges.” Culp v. State, 933 So. 2d 264, 277 (¶40) (Miss. 2005). In Culp,
our supreme court ruled that an appellant is not entitled to a reversal of his conviction simply
because the incorrect statute is cited in the charging instrument that underlies a conviction.
Id. at (¶¶40-41). This Court has applied the same logic to a case involving a claim of postconviction relief. Brown v. State, 944 So. 2d 103, 106 (¶¶8-9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
¶13.
In the present case, the information that charged Strickland stated that: “on or about
the 19th day of November, 2006, [Strickland] willfully and unlawfully and feloniously
possess[ed] 5.37 grams of Methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance . . . .” 2
2
The language was virtually the same in Count II of the information, except that the
controlled substances were listed as methamphetamine and cocaine, and the date was given
as November 27, 2006.
5
Clearly, Strickland was put on notice regarding the nature of the crimes with which he had
been charged. This contention of error is without merit.
2. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶14.
In this contention of error, Strickland claims that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel before entering his plea of guilty. Strickland’s basis for this contention is that his
attorney convinced him to waive his right to a formal indictment.
¶15.
Our supreme court has said the following regarding an ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim in a PCR setting:
The United States Supreme Court established a two-part test for determining
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), as follows:
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was
deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so
serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel”
guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the
defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so
serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose
result is reliable.
Id. at 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052.
The Court further established that “the proper measure of attorney
performance remains simply reasonableness under prevailing professional
norms.” Id. at 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052. “The defendant must show that there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result
of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a
probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694,
104 S. Ct. 2052.
Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690, 694-95 (¶¶7-8) (Miss. 2009).
¶16.
Strickland has failed to meet either Strickland prong. He claims that his attorney was
6
ineffective in allowing him to waive his right to a formal indictment because “there was no
[sic] sufficient evidence for [the] prosecutor to put together a presentment draft for
possession of a controlled substance.” Strickland also reiterates his arguments regarding the
propriety of the information that was used to charge him.
¶17.
The only evidence before this Court is that Strickland committed the crimes with
which he was charged; in fact, it was Strickland who pleaded guilty to them. He has
presented no evidence to contradict his sworn plea of guilty. When asked in open court
whether the State’s evidence was accurate, he indicated that it was. “[A] valid guilty plea
admits all elements of a formal charge and operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional
defects contained in an indictment or information against a defendant.” Reeder v. State, 783
So. 2d 711, 720 (¶36) (Miss. 2001) (citing Brooks v. State, 573 So. 2d 1350, 1352 (Miss.
1990)).
¶18.
Therefore, we find that there is no evidence that Strickland’s attorney’s assistance was
ineffective merely because he encouraged Strickland to waive his right to a formal
indictment.
As we have already discussed, the information that was used to charge
Strickland was valid, despite the citation of an incorrect statute. Furthermore, Strickland has
failed to show any prejudice flowing from the alleged deficiency.
¶19.
This contention of error is without merit.
3. Invalid Sentence
¶20.
Finally, Strickland claims that he has been sentenced in violation of the Mississippi
and United States Constitutions. This issue was not raised in his motion for post-conviction
relief at the trial level. Therefore, since Strickland is raising it for the first time before this
7
Court, it is procedurally barred. Gardner v. State, 531 So. 2d 805, 808-09 (Miss. 1988);
White v. State, 22 So. 3d 378, 381 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
¶21. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JONES COUNTY
DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO JONES COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
8
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.