Anthony Swift v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-00790-COA
ANTHONY SWIFT
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
4/11/2007
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ANTHONY SWIFT (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 8/26/2008
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND CARLTON, JJ.
MYERS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Anthony Swift appeals the Clay County Circuit Court’s dismissal of his motion for post-
conviction relief. Swift was initially indicted on three counts of sale of cocaine. Thereafter, the
State moved to amend the indictment against Swift, reducing the charges to possession of cocaine.
Swift pleaded guilty to the possession of cocaine, and he was sentenced thereafter.
¶2.
In his brief to this Court, Swift alleges a myriad of trial court errors, including allegations
against the court reporter and the trial judge. Upon our review, we find that most of these issues are
unfounded and meritless; therefore, we will only review Swift’s main assertion of error: whether his
plea was involuntary.
¶3.
Swift argues that his plea was entered involuntarily and unknowingly because he was
unaware that the trial court allowed an amendment of the indictment to change the charge to a lesser
offense. Rule 8.04(A)(3) of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court provides that:
Before the trial court may accept a plea of guilty, the court must determine that the
plea is voluntarily and intelligently made and that there is a factual basis for the plea.
A plea of guilty 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.
¶4.
The record in this case demonstrates that Swift was well aware of the charge to which he
pleaded guilty. Swift’s attorney represented to the court that Swift was aware of the charge to which
he was pleading guilty, and the trial judge confirmed this fact while questioning Swift during the
plea colloquy. Swift’s responses to the court’s examination demonstrated his understanding of the
charges against him, and the responses demonstrated that he intended to plead guilty. Our review
of the plea colloquy finds that Swift’s plea was clearly voluntary, and this issue is without merit.
¶5.
Finding that Swift entered his guilty plea voluntarily, we find that his claims regarding the
sufficiency of the indictment also fail to have merit. Our law is well settled in 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 [or information] against a defendant.” Kincaid v. State, 711 So.
2d 873, 877 (¶19) (Miss. 1998) (quoting Conerly v. State, 607 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (Miss. 1992)).
¶6.
We find Swift’s argument devoid of any merit, as the transcript of the plea colloquy
demonstrates that Swift freely and voluntarily entered his guilty plea with full knowledge that the
indictment had been amended. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Swift’s motion
for post-conviction relief.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY DISMISSING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
2
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.
