Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; April 26, 2016; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Melvin Chandler, representing himself, appealed the dismissal of his postconviction relief (PCR) motion by the circuit court, which was affirmed by the court. Chandler was indicted on June 29, 2011, for aggravated assault against his daughter, Cassandra, and for using a firearm during the commission of the crime. He pled guilty to both charges on April 5, 2012, after a detailed statement from the prosecutor outlined the events leading to the assault. The court found Chandler's plea to be voluntary and informed, sentencing him to twenty years for aggravated assault (with five years suspended) and five years for the firearm enhancement, to be served consecutively.
On July 13, 2012, Chandler filed a PCR motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of a speedy trial, lack of information on sentencing, and double jeopardy. A hearing on December 14, 2012, led to the court denying all claims except for a modification of his sentence to remove the post-release supervision. The court determined that Chandler's claims were without merit, noting he expressed satisfaction with his counsel and that his plea waived his right to a speedy trial. The court also confirmed that he had been informed of the sentencing range and was not subjected to double jeopardy.
Chandler's appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court was dismissed for being untimely, as was a subsequent motion for reconsideration. He filed another PCR motion, which was dismissed on June 2, 2014, as a successive writ without applicable exceptions, reaffirming the circuit court's earlier decision which had been upheld on appeal.
Chandler appeals several issues, including claims of double jeopardy, violation of his right to a speedy trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, exceeding statutory maximum sentence, prejudice from the prosecutor’s statements, self-defense, and violations of the Uniform Mississippi Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). The standard of review for denial of a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion is abuse of discretion, where the burden is on the movant to prove entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. **Double Jeopardy**: Chandler’s claim of double jeopardy is rejected, as separate sentences for aggravated assault and firearm enhancement do not violate double jeopardy principles, following precedent that recognizes the latter as a sentencing enhancement rather than an independent offense.
2. **Speedy Trial**: Chandler's argument that his right to a speedy trial was violated is dismissed, as a valid guilty plea waives this right, a position supported by Mississippi case law.
3. **Ineffective Assistance of Counsel**: Chandler claims ineffective assistance due to his attorney's alleged failures, including not investigating the case and inducing an open plea. However, this claim is barred as a successive writ since it was previously addressed and found without merit in an earlier PCR motion.
Overall, the court finds Chandler's claims lack merit and are procedurally barred under the UPCCRA, reaffirming the previous decisions regarding his appeals.
Chandler's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is deemed meritless due to a lack of supporting affidavits, as he merely asserted the claim in his brief. His double-jeopardy argument is also rejected, leading to the failure of the ineffective-assistance claim based on that ground. The circuit court confirmed that Chandler voluntarily entered his guilty plea, stating he had received no promises regarding sentencing and was satisfied with his attorney's services. Chandler's sworn statements during the plea colloquy carry a presumption of truthfulness, further undermining his ineffective assistance claim.
Chandler challenges the legality of his amended sentence, arguing it exceeds the statutory maximum. However, the court finds the sentence of twenty years for aggravated assault, with conditions specified, to be within legal limits. He also claims he was prejudiced by purported false statements made by the prosecutor during the plea hearing; however, the court finds no evidence of false testimony and concludes that he was not prejudiced by any inaccuracies.
Chandler's assertion of acting in self-defense is considered waived due to his guilty plea, which admits all elements of the charge and waives non-jurisdictional defects. Lastly, Chandler's claim regarding a violation of the UPCCRA is rejected as his amended sentence was found to be within statutory limits and not subject to double jeopardy. The court affirms the dismissal of Chandler’s motion for post-conviction relief, with all appeal costs assigned to Hinds County.
