Sam Waites v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CP-00392-COA
SAM WAITES
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
3/25/2003
HON. SAMAC S. RICHARDSON
RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
SAM WAITES (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
DAVID BYRD CLARK
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED: 05/11/2004
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Sam Waites was indicted and pled guilty to charges of sale of cocaine and conspiracy to transfer
cocaine. Waites was sentenced to serve a term of ten years with the Mississippi Department of
Corrections on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently. The circuit court denied Waites'
petition for post-conviction relief, and Waites now perfects his appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
On or around October 9, 2000, Waites was arrested and charged with sale of cocaine. On August
16, 2001, Waites was indicted by the grand jury on two counts, sale of cocaine and conspiracy to transfer
cocaine. On January 18, 2002, with the assistance of counsel, Waites voluntarily entered a plea of guilty
to both charges.
¶3.
After accepting his guilty plea, the circuit judge sentenced Waites to ten years on each charge, with
the sentences to run concurrently. Waites filed a petition for post-conviction relief that asserted: (1) a
specific amount of cocaine was not stated in either indictment, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for not
discovering or objecting to the fact that a specific amount of cocaine was not stated in the indictments, (3)
neither his attorney nor the court informed him that a specific quantity was an essential element of the
crimes, and (4) the indictments do not fully inform him of the nature and cause of the accusations against
him.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
“When reviewing a lower court's decision to deny a petition for post conviction relief, this Court
will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous." Brown v.
State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (Miss.1999). "However, where questions of law are raised the applicable
standard of review is de novo.” Id.
ANALYSIS
¶5.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a valid guilty plea admits all elements of a formal charge and
operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects contained in an indictment against a defendant. Reeder
v. State, 783 So.2d 711, 720 (Miss. 2001) (citing Brooks v. State, 573 So.2d 1350, 1352 (Miss. 1990).
Therefore, by pleading guilty, Waites waived his right to appeal based upon the indictment.
Notwithstanding this waiver, we address the issues raised by Waites.
2
¶6.
Waites first asserts that his indictment was faulty for not stating an exact amount of cocaine. Miss.
Code Ann. § 41-29-139(a)(1) (Rev. 2001) defines the crime for which Waites was convicted:
Except as authorized by this article, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:
(1) to sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute, dispense or possess with intent to sell,
barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled substance.
There was no requirement that a specific amount of a controlled substance be found in order for a person
to be convicted under this section.
¶7.
Waites was sentenced under Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(b) (Rev. 2001), which provides the
sentencing standards for a conviction under subsection (a) for crimes involving cocaine. This section also
contains sentencing standards for crimes involving marihuana. This is the point of Waites’ confusion. For
crimes involving marihuana, sentencing may vary depending upon the amount of the controlled substance
involved. However, such limitations do not apply to crimes involving cocaine. Waites was convicted of
the transfer of cocaine, not marihuana. Thus, since there is no statute that requires a specific amount of
cocaine be included in the indictment, Waites’ claim that his indictment was faulty is without merit.
¶8.
Waites next asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on this claim,
Waites must demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficiency prejudiced
him in such a way that he was denied a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
The counsel’s deficiency is assessed by looking at the totality of the circumstances. Hiter v. State, 660
So. 2d 961, 965 (Miss. 1995). We, as an appellate court, apply "a strong presumption that counsel's
conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must
overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound
trial strategy." Burns v. State, 813 So. 2d 668, 673 (¶14) (Miss. 2001).
3
¶9.
Waites claims that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to discover that the indictment was
faulty for not stating an amount of the controlled substance. Waites also contends that his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the faulty indictment, prejudicing Waites in sentencing. Waites' claims are
moot because, as discussed above, the indictment was not defective. Before accepting Waites' guilty plea,
the judge specifically asked Waites if he was satisfied with his counsel. Waites responded in the affirmative.
Moreover, the signed guilty plea petition indicates that Waites was informed of the possible sentence he
could receive and that Waites stated he was satisfied with the representation of his counsel. Therefore, we
find this issue to be without merit.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO RANKIN COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS
AND CHANDLER, 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.