Terry Burns v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CA-00414-COA
TERRY BURNS A/K/A TERRY W. BURNS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
1/26/2007
HON. THOMAS J. GARDNER, III
PRENTISS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JASON LEE SHELTON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 01/22/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND BARNES, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On January 6, 2004, Terry Burns was approached by two investigators as he exited his
vehicle at approximately 11:30 a.m. after parking it in his driveway. The officers suspected that
Burns was driving with a suspended driver’s license. The officers commenced a search of Burns’s
car and found twenty-one hydromorphone (Dilaudid) tablets under the seat of the vehicle. Burns
was arrested and the officers submitted an affidavit for the search of his home. The search yielded
more controlled substances.
¶2.
Burns pled guilty in the Circuit Court of Prentiss County to the sale of hydromorphone, a
Schedule II controlled substance. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139 (Rev. 2005). Burns was sentenced
to a term of twenty years with eight years suspended, leaving a term of twelve years to serve in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶3.
On September 22, 2006, Burns filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting violations
of his Fourth Amendment rights. The motion was dismissed by the trial court. Burns now appeals
asserting that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief.
¶4.
Finding no error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
In reviewing a trial court’s decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief the standard
of review is clear. “The trial court’s denial will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court’s
decision was clearly erroneous.” Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
When issues of law are raised the proper standard of review is de novo. Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d
595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶6.
Burns argues that his motion for post-conviction relief was improperly dismissed because
the arresting officers conducted an illegal, warrantless search of his vehicle and subsequently, an
illegal search of his home.
¶7.
By entering a plea of guilty to the sale of hydromorphone, Burns waived his right to
challenge the State’s evidence. Young v. State, 797 So. 2d 239, 246 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
A valid guilty plea waives the defendant’s right to make certain constitutional challenges, including
those under the Fourth Amendment. King v. State, 738 So. 2d 240, 240-41 (¶¶ 4-5) (Miss. 1999).
The United States Supreme Court has provided the following explanation for the waiver:
2
[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the
criminal process. When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court
that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter
raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of his constitutional rights that
occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.
Thornhill v. State, 919 So. 2d 238, 241 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (quoting Tollett v. Henderson,
411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)).
¶8.
Burns has waived any unreasonable search and seizure claim under the Fourth Amendment
and has made no argument that his guilty plea was invalid. See Brown v. State, 944 So. 2d 103, 105
(¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (“A guilty plea is not binding upon the accused unless made knowingly
and voluntarily.”). We find Burns’s claim to be without merit.
¶9.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE PRENTISS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.