Robert Smith v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00383-COA
ROBERT SMITH
APPELLANT
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:
APPELLEE
2/21/2002
HON. ANDREW C. BAKER
PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ROBERT SMITH (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS
JOHN W. CHAMPION
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION
COLLATERAL RELIEF IS DISMISSED.
AFFIRMED - 3/25/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On July 18, 2001, Robert Allen Smith pled guilty to the armed robbery of the Western Sizzlin
restaurant in Batesville, Mississippi. The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial District of Panola County,
the Honorable Andrew C. Baker presiding, sentenced Smith to twenty years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections, with thirteen years suspended.
¶2.
On January 4, 2002, Smith filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the
motion and Smith appealed. We affirm.
Issues
I. WHETHER SMITH WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.
II. WHETHER SMITH’S GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED KNOWINGLY,
INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY.
Legal Analysis
I. WHETHER SMITH WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL.
¶3.
In Leatherwood v. State, 473 So. 2d 964 (Miss. 1985), the Mississippi Supreme Court adopted
the test promulgated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). One claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving: (1) his counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the
outcome of the trial would have been different, but for the deficiency in performance. Id. at 687. This is
a high standard, since we presume that an attorney’s conduct is “within the wide range of reasonable
professional assistance.” Id. at 689. Further, we view the conduct in the totality of the circumstances to
discover if any errors made by the attorney were “outside the range of professionally competent
assistance.” Id. at 690.
¶4.
Smith argues that his court-appointed counsel was ineffective since the attorney “failed to investigate
his arrest and see that the statement given by [Smith] was inadmissable due to investigators [sic] tricks. .
. . ” Additionally, Smith alleges his attorney failed to investigate Smith’s mental competency.
¶5.
“Tricks” are permissible during police questioning, as long as they do not “rise to the level of
compulsion or coercion.” Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990). The trick Smith alleges was the
promise of freedom if he signed a statement confessing to the armed robbery. Assuming arguendo that
the police did make such a promise and it rises to the level of compulsion or coercion, Smith still does not
2
pass the Strickland test. He has not shown that the outcome of his trial would have been different but for
this alleged failure to meet professional standards. It is most likely that the trial’s result would be the same
since Smith’s partner in the robbery pled guilty and implicated Smith. Additionally, this course of action
could be said to fall within trial strategy, which is well within the attorney’s purview. Scott v. State, 742
So. 2d 1190, 1196 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).
¶6.
We see no merit to this issue, and therefore we affirm the trial court’s decision as it applies to this
issue.
II. WHETHER SMITH’S GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED KNOWINGLY,
INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY.
¶7.
A defendant must execute such a waiver intelligently and understandingly. Boykin v. Alabama, 395
U.S. 238, 242 (1969). Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 8.04 (A)(3) states a plea “is not voluntary
if induced by fear, violence, deception, or improper inducements. A showing that the plea of guilty was
voluntarily and intelligently made must appear in the record.”
¶8.
A review of the transcript shows this issue to be completely without merit. The trial judge
thoroughly questioned Smith to insure that he made an informed decision. He explained that by pleading
guilty, Smith could expect to receive a sentence between three years and life. Smith stated that he thought
he had sufficiently discussed the issue of his plea with his lawyer.
¶9.
Smith affirmed he was not under the effects of alcohol or illegal drugs. While he had been treated
for “mental or emotional sickness,” he stated it had been two and a half to three years ago, and he did
know right from wrong.
¶10.
Judge Baker thoroughly explained the trial process so that each defendant would know just what
he was giving up by pleading guilty. Smith stated that no one had lied or tricked him into pleading guilty,
3
and attested that he was freely admitting his guilt. Under these facts, we find that Smith did knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily plead guilty.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT OF PANOLA COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO PANOLA COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
