Emanuel Reddish Ellis v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CP-00185-COA
EMANUEL REDDISH ELLIS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
02/23/1999
TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. JERRY O. TERRY SR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
PRO SE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A KLINGFUSS
NATURE OF THE CASE:
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
02/23/1999: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED - 01/16/2001
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
2/6/2001
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE, AND THOMAS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Emanuel Reddish Ellis, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi
denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Ellis perfected this appeal, raising the following
issues as error:
I. WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL?
II. WAS ELLIS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. On July 10, 1996, Ellis was indicted for transfer of a controlled substance (cocaine) and simple assault
on a police officer as a habitual offender. These crimes were committed on March 22, 1996. Ellis was
arraigned and pled not guilty on November 8, 1996. Thereafter, 222 days later, on June 18, 1997, Ellis
pled guilty to the transfer of controlled substance count in exchange for the State's recommending a ten year
sentence on the drug charge and passing the assault to the files. The trial court sentenced Ellis as an habitual
offender to serve ten years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without hope of parole
pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (Rev. 2000). Ellis filed a post-conviction motion to dismiss for
lack of a speedy trial, which was denied without a hearing. It is from this denial that Ellis now appeals.
ANALYSIS
I.
WHETHER APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WAIVED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
SPEEDY TRIAL?
¶3. Ellis contends that he was denied his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial. Ellis states that
the long delay was prejudice towards his case; however, Ellis offers no facts to support this alleged
prejudice. The trial court found that there was no 270 day rule violation under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-1,
nor any facts to support a constitutional claim. Obviously, there was no 270 day violation in as much as
Ellis's case was disposed of in 222 days. Furthermore, our supreme court has held that a guilty plea waives
the right to a speedy trial, whether of constitutional or statutory origin and will not be the basis for relief on a
motion for post-conviction relief. Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390, 391-92 (Miss. 1991). See also
Drennan v State, 695 So. 2d 581, 584 (Miss. 1997); Conerly v. State, 607 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Miss.
1992). We hold that Ellis's argument lacks merit.
II.
WAS ELLIS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
¶4. In his motion for post-conviction relief, Ellis alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty, misrepresented the status of his case, and failed to
properly prepare the case for trial, all with the collateral intent to cover up the fact that counsel was
unprepared for trial. In order for Ellis to prove the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, under Miss. Code
Ann. § 99- 39-11(2) (Rev. 2000), the allegation must be alleged with specificity. "[H]e must specifically
allege facts showing that effective assistance of counsel was not in fact rendered, and he must allege with
specificity the fact that but for such purported actions by ineffective counsel, the results of the trial court
decision would have been different." Smith v. State, 434 So. 2d 212, 219 (Miss. 1983). See also Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-39-9(1)(c) (Rev. 2000). Ellis alleges that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty and
did not advise him of the correct status of his case. However, Ellis does not state the manner in which his
attorney coerced him nor detail in what way he was unaware of the correct status of his case. Therefore,
we find that Ellis has failed to meet his statutory burden of proof regarding the allegation of ineffective
assistance of counsel in that his assertions lack the "specificity and detail" required to establish a prima facie
showing. A review of the record shows that Ellis, aided by his counsel, presented his petition to plead guilty
to the trial court. Ellis's petition specifically states that he was aware of his right to a speedy trial and waived
his right by pleading guilty. In addition, in the order accepting the guilty plea the trial court noted that Ellis
knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights to trial. Ellis's allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel are without merit in that the guilty plea petition provides ample evidence to the contrary.
¶5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, IRVING, LEE, MYERS,
AND PAYNE, JJ., CONCUR. CHANDLER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
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.