Danny White v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-01306-COA
DANNY WHITE
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
FOR APPELLANT:
FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
07/16/2001
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
WHITE, PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JO ANNE M. MCLEOD
ALEXANDER C. MARTIN
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 05/14/2002
6/4/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., LEE, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
BRANTLEY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Danny White, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Copiah County, Mississippi denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, White perfected this appeal raising the following issues as
error:
I. WHETHER WHITE WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
II. WHETHER WHITE WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND
DUE PROCESS AT SENTENCING.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On March 7, 1997, White was indicted for the offense of unlawful sale of cocaine within fifteen hundred
feet of a church as an habitual offender and on August 7, 1998, he pled guilty to the charge. Upon the
State's recommendation, White was sentenced to serve twelve years without parole or early release in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On June 28, 2001, White filed a petition for post-
conviction relief contending that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process of the law at
sentencing. His motion was denied without a hearing for lack of merit.
ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER WHITE WAS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
¶3. White argues that the trial court improperly ruled on his motion without conducting a hearing on the
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process at sentencing. White offered no
affidavits or other evidence in support of his assertions, either at the trial court level or on appeal.
¶4. A trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether to grant an evidentiary hearing. Meeks
v. State, 781 So. 2d 109, 114 (¶14) (Miss. 2001). According to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (Rev.
2000), "if 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, the judge may make an order for its dismissal." Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (Rev. 2000). In addition,
when the prima facie showing that is a necessary prerequisite to an evidentiary hearing consists solely
of the assertions of the movant himself, the trial court may disregard such assertions when they are
substantially contradicted by the court record of the proceedings that led up to the entry of the
judgment of guilt.
Wilson v. State, 760 So. 2d 862, 864 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶5. White has presented no evidence beyond his mere assertions that he was denied due process and
effective assistance of counsel and the plea petition and the transcript of the plea acceptance hearing
substantially contradict these assertions. The trial judge, after his review of the petition to enter a guilty plea
and the court file, clearly acted within his authority to rule on White's motion without an evidentiary hearing
and did not abuse his discretion in relying on White's sworn testimony. Simpson v. State, 678 So. 2d 712,
716 (Miss. 1996); Mowdy v. State, 638 So. 2d 738, 743 (Miss. 1994). This assignment of error is
without merit.
II. WHETHER WHITE WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND
DUE PROCESS AT SENTENCING.
¶6. First, White contends that "he has been sentenced as an [sic] recidivist contrary to established law" and
that his attorney was ineffective for failure to object to the habitual offender status. White assigns as the
second error that the court denied him due process at sentencing because the indictment contained false
charges against him, which rendered the court without the power to sentence him as an habitual offender.
Although White cited authority as a basis for his arguments in the denied original post-conviction relief
motion to the trial court, White cites no authority on appeal for the proposition that his attorney was
deficient for failing to object to habitual offender status, nor for the argument that he was denied due
process during sentencing.
¶7. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated, "[t]here is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court
is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court." Clark v.
State, 503 So. 2d 277, 280 (Miss. 1987). Furthermore, the appellant has the duty to make more than
mere assertions and should set forth reasons for his arguments and cite authorities in their support. Id. If the
party does not provide this support, this Court is under no duty to consider assignments of error when no
authority is cited. Drennan v. State, 695 So. 2d 581, 585-86 (Miss. 1997). In examining this combination
of issues in the present case, this Court notes that White failed to make meaningful arguments or cite
pertinent authority in addressing these issues. Therefore, these assignments of error are procedurally barred
from review.
¶8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COPIAH COUNTY DENYING
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO COPIAH COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, MYERS AND CHANDLER, 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.