Jimmy Lee Cook, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CA-01212-COA
JIMMY LEE COOK, JR.
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
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:
6/27/2001
HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS
HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GAIL P. THOMPSON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
JAMES H. POWELL, III
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED.
AFFIRMED: 2/11/2003
BEFORE KING, P.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, JJ.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Jimmy Lee Cook, Jr. pled guilty to one count of armed robbery in the Circuit Court of
Holmes County. The court sentenced Cook to six years in the custody of MDOC, with four years'
post-release supervision. Cook filed a motion for post-conviction relief that the trial court denied
him. Cook then perfected his appeal to this court in a timely fashion.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. DID COOK RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
II. WAS COOK'S GUILTY PLEA KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED?
III. DID THE COURT ERR IN DENYING COOK AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING?
ANALYSIS
I. DID COOK RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
¶2.
Cook argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, because he believed that the
sentence recommendation that the State had agreed to make was binding on the judge. Further, he
argues that he was misled by his counsel to believe that he would serve his time under the 85% rule,
when in fact any sentence under ten years for armed robbery is served under the mandatory 100%
rule.
¶3.
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Cook must show by a preponderance of the
evidence that 1) counsel's performance was defective, and 2) that defect was so prejudicial as to
prevent Cook from having a fair trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984);
Moody v. State, 644 So. 2d 451, 456 (Miss. 1994). Cook faces a strong yet rebuttable presumption
that counsel performed adequately, and must show a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s
errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Moody, 644 So. 2d at 456. This Court looks
at the totality of the circumstances, with deference towards counsel’s actions, to find a factual basis
for the claim. Id. Should we find that Cook's counsel was ineffective, the appropriate remedy is
remand for a new trail. Id.
¶4.
Cook provides ample factual evidence to support his claim that in fact counsel may not have
thoroughly explained the consequences of the 100% rule or the fact that the court was not bound by
the State's recommendations in sentencing. However, the record demonstrates that the court took
extensive pains to explain to Cook that the court had full discretion to reject any sentence
recommendations by the State. The court also permitted Cook to further consult with counsel
following this explanation, and afterwards Cook was quite satisfied and willing to plead guilty.
2
Consequently, although there is some evidence of a slight defect in counsel's performance, it was
hardly prejudicial, given the court's judicious care in evaluating Cook's state of mind and the
knowledge he had surrounding his guilty plea. We find that Cook's claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel is without merit.
II. WAS COOK'S GUILTY PLEA VOLUNTARILY AND INTELLIGENTLY ENTERED?
¶5.
This Court will not set aside findings of a trial court sitting without a jury unless such
findings are clearly erroneous. Stevenson v. State, 798 So. 2d 599, 602 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
The burden of proving that a guilty plea was involuntary is on the defendant and must be proven by
a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
¶6.
Cook argues that his guilty plea was coerced by counsel's representations of a sentencing
recommendation from the State for five years. Cook offers the affidavit of his mother in support of
this argument. However, the record belies Cook's allegation of error, as he affirmatively represented
his sound state of mind and agreement with the terms of the guilty plea to the court. The court
permitted him to ask questions, and quizzed him twice on his satisfaction with the plea he was
making. At no time during the plea hearing did Cook express any reservations, except about the
court's discretionary power in sentencing, which both the court and counsel took pains to explain to
him.
¶7.
We find that Cook has failed to establish any coercion, and that his guilty plea was both
voluntary and intelligent.
III. DID THE COURT ERR IN DENYING COOK AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING?
¶8.
The trial court is not required to have an evidentiary hearing to address the merits of a motion
for post-conviction relief . Absent any evidence of abuse of discretion, we affirm the court's decision
to deny Cook an evidentiary hearing on his motion.
3
¶9.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOLMES COUNTY DENYING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., AND KING, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS, AND
CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., AND GRIFFIS, J., NOT
PARTICIPATING.
4
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.
