I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 0 0 3 - CO A

A N T H O N Y M IL E S F O R T E N B E R R Y A /K /A ANT HONY F ORTE NB ER RY A/ K/A ANT HONY M . F ORTE NB ER RY AP P EL LA NT

v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 08/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. W IL L IA M E
. C H A P M A N III CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: EAR NESTI NE A LEXA ND ER AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: S UM M AR I L Y DI S M I S S E D M OT I ON F OR POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A nthony M i l es For t enberry pl eade d gui l ty t o one count of s exual batt ery i n vi ol at i on
o f M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 9 7 -3 -9 5 (1 )(c ) (R e v . 2 0 1 4 ). T h e R a n k in C o u n ty C i r cui tCourts ent ence d hi m t o a t erm of tw enty ye ar s i n the cus t ody of t he M i ssi ssi ppi D epartm entof

C orrect i on s ( M D O C ) , w i th thi r t een ye ar s s us pended a nd w i th f i ve yea r s of
su p erv ised p rob ati o n . F o rt en b erry fi led a m o ti o n fo r p o st- co n v ict ion co ll ateral reli ef (P C R ), al l egi ng ( 1) he w as deni ed an e vi dent i ary hear i ng; ( 2) ther e w as no f actual bas i s f

orthe
ac ce p tanc e o f the p lea; an d (3 ) h e w as d en ied effec ti v e assistan ce o f co u n sel. T h e tri al co u rt2

dis m i ssed Fo rt enb erry’s PC R m oti on . F eel i ng agg ri eved , F ort enb erry ap peals
. ¶ 2
. F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i rm. FACTS ¶3. For t enberry w as i ndi ct ed f or s exual batt ery f

or i ns ert i ng hi s f

i nger i nt o the vagi na of a then f our t een- year -ol d gir l on or aboutJ anuary 31, 2011. O n N ovember30, 2011, For t enberry pl eade d gui l ty t o the cr i m e, and the tr i al c ourts ent ence d hi m t o s erve a t erm of tw en ty ye ars, w ith th irteen ye ars su sp en d ed an d w ith fi v e y ea rs of su p erv ised p rob ati o n . In add i t i on , the tr i al cou rtordered F ort enb erry to p ay a $ 1 , 0 00 fi ne to the V i ct i m s’ C o m p en sati o n F u n d , an d to reg ist er a s a se x u al offen d er. ¶4
. O n J ul y 26, 2012, For t enberr y f i l e d a p r o s e PC R m ot i on. A f t er r evi ew i ng For t enberry’ s gui l ty- pl ea a nd s ent enci ng- hear i ng tr ans cr i pt , i n a ddi t i on t o hi s cr i m i nal f i l e, the tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed the PC R m ot i on, fi ndi ng t hat“i tpl ai nl y appear s fr om the f ace of the above- m ent i oned mot i on that[ For t enberry] is n ot e nt i t l ed t o any r el i ef
. ” A s s t at ed, For t enberry now appeal s and ar gues : ( 1) he w as deni ed an e vi dent i ary hear i ng, ( 2) ther e w as no f actual bas i s f

orthe ac cept ance of

hi s pl ea, and (3) he w as deni ed ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
c o u n se l. DI S CU S S I ON I
. Lack of

E vi dent i ar

y H ear i ng ¶5. T he tr i al court m ay s um m ar i l y di s m i s s a PC R m ot i on w i thout an evi dent i ary hear i ng “[ i ] f i tpl ai nl y appea r s f

r om the face of

the mot i on, any anne xed exhi bi t s [ , ] and the pr i or p ro c e e d in g s in th e c a s e th a t th e m o v a n t is n o t e n title d to a n y re lie f[ .]” M is s . C o d e A n n . §3

9 9 -39 -11 (2) (S u p p . 2 0 1 4 ). A n ap p ell ate co u rtw il l no t r ev erse a tri al co u rt ’s dism issal of a P C R m o tio n u n le s s th e tria l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n w a s c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s . Me a n s v . S ta te , 43 S o. 3d 438, 441 (¶ 6) ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v . S ta te , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (¶6 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). A ddi t i onal l y, a tr i al courtenjoys w i de di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o gr antan
e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . He be r tv . Stat e, 8 64 S o. 2d 1041, 1045 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng Me e k

s v . S ta te , 7 8 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 (¶1 4 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). A cc o rdin g ly, “[n]ot ev ery
m ot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef f i l ed i n the tr i al courtm us tbe af for ded a f

ul l adver s ar i al hear i ng. ” I

d. H o w e v e r, q u e s tio n s o f l a w a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . Means , 43 So. 3d at441 ( ¶6) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)
. H er e, the r ecor d does notdem ons tr at e thatthe tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al of Fo rt enb erry’s PC R m oti on w as cl earl y err on eou s. ¶6
. For t enberr y as s er t s tha th e d i d notv ol un t a r i l y pl e a d gu i l ty i n l i gh tof hi s us e of p re sc rip tio n d ru g s th a t w e re m in d a lte ri n g a n d , a s a re su lt, h e d id “ n o t . . . u n d e rsta n d h is ri g h ts a n d s im p ly s ig n e d th e d o c u m e n ts th a t w e re p la c e d in fr o n t o f h im b y [c ]o u n s e l.” ¶7
. T he t r ans cr i ptof the pl e a c ol l oq uy c l e a r l y i nd i c a t e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r tw a s made
aw ar e of the pr es cr i pt i on drugs and di d notf i nd thi s i m peded Fort enberry’ s deci s i on- m aki ng pr oces s , s peci f

i cal l y hi s deci s i on t o pl ead gui l ty. Fur therm or e, For t enberry had s ever al oppor tuni t i es dur i ng hi s hear i ng t o i nf orm the courtthathe di d notunder st and hi s pl ea agr eementdue t o hi s pr es cr i pt i on- drug us e: C O U R T : A re y o u u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f a n y d ru g s o r a lco h o l? FO R T E N B E R R Y : J us tpr es cr i pt i on.
***4

C O U R T : W hatar e thos e pr es cr i pt i on? C O U N SE L : I ti s [ uni nt el l i gi bl e] t en m i l l i gr ams, B us pi r one [ phonet i c]

15 m i l l i gr ams, and J unepr ozoa [ phonet i c] , s i x hundr ed mi l l i g r a ms . Al s o , Hyd r o x a c e n [ p h o n e t i c ] , HC TZ A l orpor ol a [ phonet i c] , L exi con [ phonet i c] , and L e re to lita n [p h o n e tic ]. C O U R T : A l l ri gh t , w hy are you t aking tho se m edicat i on s? FO R T E N B E R R Y : D epr es s i on and anxi ety.
*** C O U R T : H as [ For t enberry] been abl e t o ass i s tyou i n hi s def ens e? C O U N S E L : Y e s , y o u r H o n o r.
*** C O U R T : A t th is p o in t, i t’s n o t to o late to sto p th e h e a rin g , b u t it

w i l l be i f

I accep tyourgui l ty pl ea, and I w antt o be cert ai n you w antt o p l ead gui l ty. D o you w antt o pl ead gui l ty? F O R T E N B E R R Y : Y es, si r. ¶ 8
. W h ile F o rte n b e rry sta ted th a t h e w a s o n se v e ra l p re sc rip tio n m e d ica tio n s, h e d id n o t, atany poi nt , i nf

orm the tr i al courtthatthe medi cat i on af f ect ed hi s m ent al s t at e orthathe had doubt s aboutpl eadi ng gui l ty. Fur therm or e, For t enberry did notatt ach a ny m edi cal document at i on to hi s PC R m ot i on i n s upportof hi s cont ent i on thatthe medi cat i on he w as takin g alt ere d h is m en tal stat e. W e, l ike th e tri al co u rt , h av e b ee n p ro v id e d o n ly h is ba re
a s s e rt io n s . Se e P e a rs o n v . S ta te , 945 So. 2d 399, 401 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2006)
. Ther ef or e,
w e ca nnots ay thatthe tr i al c ourte rr ed i n s um m ar i l y r ej ect i ng For t enberry’ s cont ent i on that5

h is p re sc rip tio n m e d ica tio n re n d e re d h is g u ilty p lea in v o lu n tar y . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I
. Lack of

FactualB as is to Suppor tP l ea of G ui l t y ¶9. For t enberry al s o cont ends that ther e w as no f actual bas i s f

or hi s pl ea. T hi s i s s ue w as
n o t p re s e n te d to th e tria l c o u rta n d , th e re fo re , is b a rr e d fr o m a p p e lla te re v ie w . See M oaw ad
v . S ta te , 5 3 1 S o . 2 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). III. In e ffec tive A ss ista n c e o

f C o u n se l ¶10
. H er e, Fort enberry s peci f i cal l y st at ed thathe w as denied eff ect i ve ass i s t ance of couns el
w h e n h e w a s in fo rm e d th a t h is c h o ice w a s e ith e r to e n tera p lea o f g u ilty o r “ g o to trial w ith in tw enty- f our( 24) hour s . ” A vol unt ary gui l ty pl ea w ai ves cl ai m s of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el , “exc epti nsofaras the al l eged i nef f ect i venes s r el at es t o the vol unt ar i nes s of the gi vi ng of the gui l ty pl ea. ” Hill

v . S ta te , 60 So. 3d 8 24 , 827 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶11. W hen a de f

endantpl eads gui l ty, and l at eras s ert s i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , he
m us tdemonstr at e thathi s counse l ’ s “conductpr oxi m at el y r es ul t ed i n [ the] gui l ty pl ea, and [ that ] butforcounse l ' s err or s , he w oul d nothave e nt er ed the pl ea. ” C o le v . S ta te , 918 So. 2d 890, 894 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( ci t i ng R e y n o ld s v . S ta te , 52 1 S o. 2d 9 14 , 91 8 (M i ss. 1988) )
. “[ H ] e m us tshow unpr of es s i onal err or s of

s ubs t ant i al gr avi ty. ” I

d. M o re o v e r, “ [i]n
cas es i nvol vi ng pos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef , w her e a pa r ty of

f er s onl y hi s af

f i davi t , then hi s i nef f ect i ve[
- ] as s i s t ance [
- of

- couns el ] cl ai m i s w i thoutm er i t . ” Ch e rr y v. S ta te , 24 So. 3d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 1 (¶6 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ) (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶12. D ur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy, For t enberry w as as ked:6

C O U R T : A r e you s at i s f i ed w i th youra t t orney’ s r epr es ent at i on of you? F O R T E N B E R R Y : Y es, si r. C O U R T : D o you have a ny compl ai nt s you w i s h to m ake about

h i m? F O R T E N B E R R Y : N o , sir
. T h e tr a n s c r i p tn o twi th s t a n d i n g , F o r t e n b e rry a r g u e s t h a tc o u n s e l k n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o wn th a t he w a s u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f m in d -a lterin g d ru g s. F o rte n b e rry c laim s th a t h e “ sim p ly sign ed the d o c u m en ts th at w ere p lace d in fron t of h im b y co u n sel. ” A g ain, F o rt en b erry
m e re ly m a k e s a n a ss e rtio n a n d d o e s n o t su p p o rt h is c laim

— th a t h is m in d w a s a ltere d

— w ith any evi dence
. H e of

f er s onl y hi s ow n af

f i davi t , al l eging d efi ci ency on the partof hi s tr i al
cou nsel
. F ort enb erry further cont end s that he had l i t t l e or no m em ory of the ev ents becau se of hi s pre s cr i pt i on- drug use and dr i nki ng on the ni ghtof the i nci dentl eadi ng up t o hi s w r i tt en conf es s i on. H ow ever , the pl ea hear i ng w as ove rs i x mont hs l at er . E ven af t erthi s per i od of t i m e, For t enberry chos e t o pl ead gui l ty. W e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng F o rt e n b e rr y ’s P C R m o tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ff ir m . ¶ 1 3
. THE JUDGM ENT O F T HE CI RCUI T C OURT OF RAN KI N CO UNTY DI S M I S S I NG THE M OTI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S AF F I RM ED . ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO R ANK I N CO UNTY
. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.