Ja'Alexie Johnston v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CA-02116-COA
JA'ALEXIE JOHNSTON
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
12/18/2000
HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LESLIE D. ROUSSELL
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
BILBO MITCHELL
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL
RELIEF DENIED.
AFFIRMED - 03/12/2002
4/2/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND MYERS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Ja'Alexie Johnston appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Mississippi denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Johnston perfected this appeal, raising the following issue as
error:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING JOHNSTON'S MOTION FOR POST
CONVICTION RELIEF CLAIMING THAT HIS PLEA WAS UNINFORMED AND
THEREFORE INVOLUNTARY DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Ja'Alexie Johnston entered a plea of guilty to armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Wayne County on
July 8, 1997. As a result of that plea, which was based on a plea bargain agreement reached between
Johnston and the State of Mississippi, Johnston was sentenced to serve a term of twenty-two years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Johnston filed a motion to vacate sentence and plea
or correct sentence. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the lower court entered an order
denying relief.
¶3. In his motion, Johnston claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the
ineffective assistance that he received led to an involuntary and unintelligent guilty plea. Johnston claims that
his lawyer advised him that he would be eligible for parole after serving ten years and that he would not
have pled guilty if he would have known that he would have to serve every day of the twenty-two year
sentence. In an affidavit and at the evidentiary hearing, Johnston stated that he understood the first ten years
to be mandatory and that he was being sentenced under 85% parole eligibility and that he was "up under the
85%."
¶4. The lower court found that Johnston had to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that
Johnston entered a plea of guilty only because he was given erroneous advice of counsel. After the initial ten
years, the lower court found 85% of the remaining twelve years to be 10.2 years for a total of 20.2 years.
The court found that it could not conclude that Johnston gave his plea involuntarily because Johnston did not
prove that he would not have pled guilty if he would have known that he would have to serve twenty-two
years instead of 20.2 years. The lower court did not believe that Johnston would have risked being
sentenced on additional charges including two possible life sentences in order to avoid an additional 1.8
years.
ANALYSIS
I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN DENYING JOHNSTON'S MOTION FOR POST
CONVICTION RELIEF CLAIMING THAT HIS PLEA WAS UNINFORMED AND
THEREFORE INVOLUNTARY DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
¶5. The standard of review after an evidentiary hearing in post- conviction relief cases is well settled: "We
will not set aside such a finding unless it is clearly erroneous. Put otherwise, we will not vacate such a finding
unless, although there is evidence to support it, we are on the entire evidence left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made." Reynolds v. State, 521 So. 2d 914, 917-18 (Miss. 1988).
"However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo." Brown v.
State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
¶6. In order to meet constitutional standards, a guilty plea must be freely and voluntarily entered.
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 653 (1976). "The question whether a plea of guilty [is] a voluntary
and knowing one necessarily involves issues of fact." Banana v. State, 635 So. 2d 851, 854 (Miss. 1994).
It is essential that the plea be made by the defendant after proper advice by counsel, and it must be made
with the defendant's full understanding of the consequences. Henderson, 426 U.S. at 653. Notwithstanding,
it is possible that the thoroughness of the interrogation performed by the circuit court at the time the plea
was tendered may be the most important evidence to consider. Weatherspoon v. State, 736 So. 2d 419,
421 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
¶7. Johnston claims that he was misinformed by counsel as to the consequences of a guilty plea, namely that
he did not know that he would have to serve a mandatory twenty-two year sentence. Exactly how he was
misled is unclear. The lower court found that Johnston's claim that he believed that he would be eligible for
parole after serving ten years was not credible and that 85% of the remaining twelve years would be 20.2
years. The difference between twenty-two years and 20.2 years was insignificant if it was the promise that
induced Johnston to enter a guilty plea. In exchange for the guilty plea, charges of armed robbery,
attempted armed robbery, and a felon in possession of a deadly weapon were dismissed. Johnston could
have received two life sentences under these charges.
¶8. In his petition to enter plea of guilty, Johnston wrote in his own handwriting the sentence to be
recommended by the district attorney. This included "twenty-two years to serve on count I - armed
robbery - in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections." No mention was made of eligibility
for parole or 85%. Similarly, in the guilty plea proceedings, Johnston answered questions regarding the
sentence recommended by the State. Johnston stated under oath that he understood the sentence to be
twenty-two years plus three years for a probation revocation which was to be served consecutively. The
court also questioned Johnston's attorney to determine if he understood the agreement fully. At no time did
Johnston raise a question to the amount of time to be served or state in any manner that he did not
understand the consequences of his actions. The court stated, "You got a twenty-five years, twenty-two
plus 3, twenty-five year prison sentence." Johnston replied, "Yes sir, I'll go through with it."
¶9. The burden of proving that a guilty plea is involuntary is on the defendant and must be proven by
preponderance of the evidence. House v. State, 754 So. 2d 1147, 1152 (¶25) (Miss. 1999). The lower
court determined at the evidentiary hearing that Johnston failed to meet this burden. He consistently stated
that he knew the consequences of his actions and that he understood the length of his sentence. We hold
that the lower court did not err in its determination.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
WAYNE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, 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.
