Robert Eacholes v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-01489-COA
ROBERT EACHOLES A/K/A ROBERT ECHOLS
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:
8/20/2002
HON. ANDREW K. HOWORTH
CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ROBERT EACHOLES (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
JAMES M. HOOD, III
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED - 06/03/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On April 30, 2001, Robert Eacholes pled guilty in the Calhoun County Circuit Court to two counts
of the sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, and was sentenced to fifteen years on each count in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with seven years suspended and eight years to serve
concurrently on each count, including five years' post-release supervision. Eacholes filed a motion for postconviction collateral relief on September 27, 2001. This motion was denied on August 20, 2002. Eacholes
now appeals the denial of post-conviction relief to this Court, asserting that his guilty plea was not voluntary
and that he should be granted an evidentiary hearing to prove this claim. Finding no merit, we affirm.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUE
¶2.
In reviewing a trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, our standard of review is well stated.
We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. However,
where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo. Pace v. State, 770 So.
2d 1052 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶3.
With this issue, Eacholes claims that he was scared to proceed to trial and, therefore, pled guilty,
because he overheard his attorney tell the district attorney that he was not in a "fighting mood." According
to the Mississippi Supreme Court, if the defendant is advised regarding the nature of the charge and the
consequences of the plea, then the plea is considered voluntary and intelligent. Alexander v. State, 605
So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Miss. 1992). Furthermore, "solemn declarations in open court carry a strong
presumption of verity." Baker v. State, 358 So. 2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978). In the present case, the
record reflects that Eacholes was informed of the charges against him and the possible sentence. The
record also reveals that Eacholes admitted to committing the crimes charged. In light of the fact that
Eacholes stated under oath that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty and that no one had
made any representations to him regarding his sentence, we find Eacholes' argument that his plea was not
voluntary to be without merit.
¶4.
Eacholes also briefly mentions that there was not enough evidence for the judge to accept the guilty
plea, and that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing. In order to receive an evidentiary
hearing, the movant must demonstrate, through affidavits or otherwise, the potential existence of facts that,
if proven at the hearing, would entitled the movant to relief. Potts v. State, 755 So. 2d 1196 (¶ 5) (Miss.
2
Ct. App. 1999). In the case before us, Eacholes' claim, unsupported by anything other than his own
assertion, that the evidence was insufficient is substantially contradicted by his own admission of guilt at the
plea hearing. We cannot disturb a lower court's findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous, and
here, we cannot do so.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO
CALHOUN COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
