Annie Traylor v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CP-01744-COA
ANNIE TRAYLOR A/K/A ANNIE MARIE THOMAS TRAYLOR
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
06/06/2000
HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER III
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
DENNIS H. FARRIS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 11/20/2001
12/11/2001
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND LEE, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On August 12, 1997, a Lee County Circuit Court grand jury indicted the appellant, Annie Traylor, on a
charge of sale of cocaine within fifteen hundred feet of a church in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29142(1) (Rev. 1993). Traylor initially entered a plea of not guilty, but she later withdrew that plea and pled
guilty to the charge. She was sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections, but was placed in the Intensive Supervision Program. In January 1999, Traylor's
participation in the program was revoked because she tested positive for drug use, which violated a term of
the program. Traylor was ordered to serve the remainder of her sentence in prison. She filed a petition for
post-conviction relief in June 2000, but such petition was denied. She now appeals to this Court arguing she
was denied effective assistance of counsel.
I. WAS THE APPELLANT DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
¶2. We review a trial court's denial of post-conviction relief under a clearly erroneous standard, and we
review questions of law de novo. Pace v. State, 770 So. 2d 1052 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). With her
brief, Traylor cites many grounds which she suggests show that she was denied effective assistance of
counsel: her counsel failed to investigate her claim, allowed her to incriminate herself, did not contest what
she found to be unreasonable search and seizure procedures, did not give credence to the witness list she
submitted, did not contest the alleged faulty indictment, and did not advise her of the minimum penalties for
the crime with which she was charged. Traylor combines and addresses these claims in her argument that
her counsel was ineffective, but we first address questions surrounding Traylor's entry of guilty plea.
¶3. The transcript of the plea hearing shows that the judge questioned Traylor, asking whether she was
satisfied with her attorney's performance, which she was, and whether she had been coerced into her plea,
which she stated she had not. Traylor acknowledged that she understood the charges against her and that
she understood the maximum and minimum penalties she could incur for the crime with which she was
charged. The judge accepted her guilty plea and found she had knowingly and voluntarily entered such plea.
The question of whether a plea was voluntarily and knowingly made is a question of fact. Guyton v. State,
766 So. 2d 33 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Reviewing the transcript and Traylor's informed responses to
the judge's questioning, we cannot find any clear error surrounding Traylor's entry of guilty plea.
¶4. We next look to Traylor's other general allegations concerning instances in which she claims her
counsel's performance was inadequate. The Strickland v. Washington standard governs questions
concerning ineffective assistance of counsel: "To prevail on the issue of whether his defense counsel's
performance was ineffective requires a showing that counsel's performance was deficient and that the
defendant was prejudiced by counsel's mistakes." Davis v. State, 758 So. 2d 463 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App.
2000); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 (1984). Traylor makes general claims
concerning the denial of her constitutional rights with regard to self-incrimination and protection against
unreasonable search and seizure; however, she fails to develop these theories to show how she was denied
such rights and how her counsel's defective performance acted to prejudice her case. Traylor claims her
indictment was defective because it showed enhancement as an element of the offense charged; however,
the crime with which she was charged does carry with it the option to enhance the penalty. Miss. Code
Ann. § 41-29-139 (Rev. 1993). Also, Traylor claims she was not informed of the minimum sentence for
her crime; however, the transcript of the hearing shows the judge explained to her precisely that the
sentences for her crime ranged from twice the normal penalty of thirty years in prison and a one million
dollar fine down to a minimum fine of $5,000. We find no error here.
¶5. In Traylor's other vague assertions, she fails to show any prejudice she incurred as a result of the alleged
deficiencies in her counsel's performance; thus, we cannot find that her counsel was ineffective as to require
our further action in this matter. We find no merit to Traylor's claims, and we affirm the trial court's denial of
her petition for post-conviction relief.
¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO
LEE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, 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.
