Case Title: Allen v. State

Citation: 465 So. 2d 1088

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1985-03-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
465 So. 2d 1088 (1985) Tyrone ALLEN v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 55463. Supreme Court of Mississippi. March 20, 1985. Boyd P. Atkinson, Cleveland, for appellant. Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen. by John H. Emfinger, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ. *1089 ROY NOBLE LEE, Presiding Justice, for the Court: Tyrone Allen was found guilty in the Circuit Court of Bolivar County on a charge of aggravated assault as an habitual offender, and was sentenced to twenty (20) years in custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without probation or parole. He has appealed from the conviction and sentence and assigns one error in the trial below. Jolee Green was the former girlfriend of appellant. Their relationship had terminated approximately two (2) weeks prior to March 11, 1983. On that night, appellant knocked on Jolee Green's bedroom window and called her. Thereupon, she went to the window, looked out, and saw appellant, who shot her twice with a shotgun, once in the face and in the right chest. Jolee Green survived the wounds but was hospitalized for approximately one month. After indictment, appellant's attorney and the assistant district attorney engaged in plea bargaining discussions. The assistant district attorney offered to accept a guilty plea; recommend that appellant be sentenced to serve twenty (20) years in the state penitentiary; and recommend the habitual offender part of the indictment be dismissed. Appellant refused the offer and countered with an offer to plead guilty and accept a sentence of twelve (12) years. That counter-offer was declined by the district attorney. Upon his arraignment, appellant attempted to plead guilty and receive the 20-year sentence, to which the district attorney objected. The assistant district attorney had no recollection of offering to drop the habitual offender charge. There was no record made of the negotiations between him and appellant's counsel. Appellant contends first that he accepted the assistant district attorney's proposed plea bargain of twenty (20) years (without being an habitual offender) and that he had a constitutional right that the bargain be specifically enforced. The United States Supreme Court decided the question contrary to appellant's position in Mabry v. Johnson, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S. Ct. 2543, 81 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1984). There the deputy prosecutor proposed to the defendant's attorney that in exchange for a plea of guilty, he would recommend a 21-year concurrent sentence. The following day, counsel communicated the offer to the defendant, who agreed to accept it. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel talked with the deputy prosecutor and advised him that the defendant accepted the offer. However, the deputy prosecutor told defendant's counsel that a mistake had been made and withdrew the offer. He then proposed that he would recommend a 21-year consecutive sentence in exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty, which proposal was rejected by the defendant. Subsequently, the defendant entered a plea of guilty and was given a 21-year consecutive sentence. Later, appellant filed a Federal habeas corpus proceeding which was dismissed by the district court. In holding that the defendant was not deprived of any constitutionally-protected interest, the Court said: ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S. Ct. at 2546, 2548, 81 L. Ed. 2d at 442, 444-45. Previously, in Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S. Ct. 837, 51 L. Ed. 2d 30 (1977), addressing the question, the United States Supreme Court said: 429 U.S. at 561, 97 S. Ct. at 846, 51 L. Ed. 2d at 43. Therefore, we hold that appellant had no constitutional right violated in the plea bargain. The appellant contends second that the plea bargain agreement should be specifically enforced based upon contract law. At page 8 of his brief, he states: We have examined the decisions of other jurisdictions and think the reasoning of the Washington Supreme Court in State v. Wheeler, 95 Wash. 2d 799, 631 P.2d 376 (1981), holding that, absent a guilty plea or some other detrimental reliance by the defendant, the prosecutor may revoke any plea proposal, is sound. The Court said: 631 P.2d at 378-379. See also Mabry v. Johnson, supra. The appellant here was tried by a jury and convicted subsequent to the revocation of the plea bargain offer by the assistant prosecutor. Under the authority of Mabry, supra, the appellant has no constitutional right to specifically enforce the proposed plea bargain. The offer was withdrawn before appellant entered a plea *1091 of guilty, and, since the appellant has made no claim or shown no detrimental reliance, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to specific enforcement based upon contract principles. The judgment of the lower court, therefore, is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER, P.J., and HAWKINS, DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.