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 - CP - 0 1 5 8 6 - CO A M ON I CA CA RS ON AP P EL LA NT
v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 05/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N H UEY EM FI NG ER CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: M ON I CA CA RSON ( PRO SE) 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 : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : DEN I ED M OTI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 18/ 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 L E E , C . J. , R O B E R T S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. LEE, C. J . , FOR TH E COU RT:

F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY ¶1 . O n Ju n e 6 , 2 0 1 1 , M o n ica C arso n plea d ed gu il ty i n th e M ad ison C o u n ty C ir cu it C o u rt t o r obbery. C ar s on w as s ent ence d t o f i f t een year s t o s erve i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons (M D O C ) . S he al s o pl eade d gui l ty t o r obbery i n tw o otherr el at ed
c a u se n u m b e rs, a n d rec e iv e d su sp e n d e d se n ten c e s o f fiftee n y e a rs e a c h , to ru n c o n c u rre n tly
w ith ea ch othe r bu t co n sec u ti v ely to the fir st sen tenc e. C arso n w as se n tenc ed to fi v e y ea rs of s upervi s ed pr obat i on. O n J une 26, 2013, C ar s on f i l ed a m ot i on forpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

### 2

( PC R ) . T he tr i al courtdeni ed C ar s on’ s m ot i on. C ar s on now appea l s , as s ert i ng ( 1) ineffec ti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel, (2) d ispa rate sen tenc ing , (3) e rror in the tr ial co u rt ’s
acc ept ance of

herpl ea, ( 4) err ori n the tr i al court ’ s deni al of an evi dent i ary hear i ng, ( 5) err or in the tr ial co u rt ’s de n ial o f he r m o ti o n for P C R , an d (6) c u m u lat ive e rror. STAN DA RD OF REV I EW ¶2 . W h e n re v iew in g a tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o r dism issal of a P C R m o ti o n , w e w ill o n ly d istu rb th e tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n i f i t is cl ea rl y erro n eo u s; ho w ev er, w e re v iew the tri al co u rt ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . H u g h e s v . S ta te , 106 So. 3d 836, 838 (¶4 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ). DI S CU S S I ON I . I NEFFECTI VE A SS I STAN CE O F COU NSEL ¶3. C ar s on ar gues hercouns el w as i nef f ect i ve beca us e he f

ai l ed t o a dvi s e hera boutthe l aw of r obbery and ac ces s ory af t erthe f act , i nf orm herof

the cons equenc es of

herpl ea, and i nves t i gat e the ca s e and int ervi ew w i tnes s es . I n or dert o s ucce ed on a c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , the def

endantm us tpr ove thatcouns el ’ s pe r f orm ance w as def

i ci entand th a t t h e d e fi c ie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d th e d e fe n s e . Str i ckland v. W as hi ngton , 46 6 U. S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). “I n th e c o n tex t o f g u ilty p lea s, th is m e a n s th e d e fe n d a n t m u st s h o w th a t,
w er e i tnotf

orcouns el ’ s err or s , he w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l ty an d w ou l d have i ns i s t ed on goi ng t o tr i al . ” B u rr o u g h v . S ta te , 9 So. 3d 368, 375 ( ¶22) ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng C ol em an v . S ta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). F u rth erm o re, “[ a] pe ti ti o n er m u st pro d u ce ‘m o re than con cl usory al l egat i ons on a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el . ’ ” McC r ay v. S ta te , 107 So. 3d 1042, 1045 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( quot i ng C a rp e n terv . S ta te , 899

### 3

So. 2d 916, 921 ( ¶23) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005)) . “I n cas es i nvol vi ng pos t - convi ct i on col l at er al
re lief, ‘w h e re a p a rty o ffe rs o n ly h is a ffid a v it, th e n h is in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l cla im i s w i thoutm er i t . ’ ” W

a tts v. S ta te , 97 So. 3d 722, 726 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng V

iele e v . S ta te , 6 5 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 )). ¶4 . C ar s on’ s m ot i on f or PCR r e s t s e nt i r e l y on he r own ba r e a s s e r t i on s . She of f er s no addi t i onal pr oof

t o s upporthe rc l ai m thathertr i al couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as def i ci entand that
s he w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l ty had i tbeen otherw i se. W e ther ef or e af f i rm the tr i al
c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to d e n y re lie f b a s e d o n th is is s u e . ¶5. W hi l e w e af

f i rm ba s ed on the above gr ounds , w e al s o a ddr es s Car s on’ s as s ert i on that the f act s onl y s upporta convi ct i on of acc es s ory af

t erthe f act . C ar s on ar gues t hathad
couns el advi s ed herof

thi s , s he w oul d nothave pl eade d gu i l t y t o the gr eat erof f ens e of
r obbery. I ti s w el l s ett l ed that“[ a] gui l ty pl ea w i l l be f ound val i d i f

i ti s s how n t o have be en v o lu n ta ri ly a n d in te llig e n tly m a d e b y th e c ri m in a l d e fe n d a n t b e fo re th e tr ia l c o u rt .” B ur r ough , 9 S o . 3 d a t 3 7 3 (¶ 1 1 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). “T o d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e p lea is vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y gi ven, the tr i al courtm us tadvi s e the def endantof hi s r i ght s , the natur e of the cha r ge aga i ns thi m , as w el l as the cons equ ences of the pl ea. ” I d. ( ci t at i on o m itted). ¶6. D ur i ng t he pl ea hea r i ng, C ar s on w as gi ven the oppor tuni ty t o di s agr ee w i th the f actual b a sis o f h e r p lea in th is c a se . S h e d id n o t. S h e r e a d a n d s ig n e d a p e tit io n to e n tera g u ilty p lea a n d sta ted th a t sh e u n d e rsto o d w h a t sh e re a d . S h e s tate d th a t sh e , afte r d isc u ss io n s w ith hera t t orney r egar di ng the f act s a nd c i r cumst ance s of the cas e, de ci ded t o pl ead gui l t y and thath er adm i s s i on of

gui l tw as f

r eel y and vol unt ar i l y m ade. She s ai d couns el advi s ed her

### 4

a s to th e e lem e n ts o f a n d th e d e fe n se s to th e c rim e . T h e trial c o u rt re v iew e d C a rso n ’s r ig h ts
w i th her , w hi ch s he w ai ved, and the cons equenc es of t he pl ea, i ncl udi ng the mi ni m um and
m axi m um per i ods of

i ncar cer at i on thatcoul d be i m pos ed f oreac h caus e number . C ar s on s ai d thatshe w as pl eadi ng gui l ty becaus e she w as i n fa ctgui l ty of comm i t t i ng thes e cr i m es and thats he w as s at i s f i ed w i th heratt orne y’ s r epr es ent at i on. A s thi s C ourthas s t at ed
num er ous t i m es , “[ s ] t at ement s m ade i n open courtunderoath ‘ carry a strong pr es um pt i on of ver aci ty. ’ ” C a n e v . S ta te , 109 So. 3d 568, 571 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( quot i ng Nich o ls v . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 962, 965 ( ¶6) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007)) . T o r ebutthi s pr es um pt i on, s he mustof

f erm or e than herow n bar e as s ert i ons t hathertr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve. She fa iled to d o so ; th u s, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . DI S P AR AT E S E NT E NC I NG ¶7. C ars on argues that her cod efendan t recei ved a l esser sent ence; thu s, her due -pr ocess r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. “Sent enci ng i s w i thi n the compl et e di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtand not
s ubj ectt o appel l at e r evi ew i f i ti s w i thi n the l i m i t s pr es cr i bed by s t atut e. ” W a ll v. S ta te , 718 So. 2d 1107, 1114 ( ¶29) (M i s s . 1998) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . “A s a gener al rul e, a s ent ence thatdoes notexce ed the maxi m um per i od al l ow ed by s t atut e w i l l notbe di s turbed on appea l . ” W

h ite v . S ta te , 742 So. 2d 1126, 1135 ( ¶35) ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng W a lla c e v . S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 )) . C a rs o n ’s s e n te n c e w a s w ith in th e s ta tu to ry lim its . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 5 (R e v . 2 0 1 4 ). ¶8 . Fur t herm or e, a tr i al courtis notr equi r ed t o i m pos e the s ame se nt ence on c o c o n s p ir a to rs . B u c kley v . S ta te , 119 So. 3d 1171, 1174 ( ¶11) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( ci t i ng C o lli n s v . S ta te , 822 So. 2d 364, 366 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002) ) . C ar s on al l eges thats he and

### Dif ferent vari ationsof the spel ling of thisnam e arese en throughout there cord. 1 

### 5 A sh ley B ro w n , o n e o f th re e co d e fe n d a n ts, co m m itt e d the sa m e crim e a n d p lea d e d g u ilty to the s ame cr i m e, butthatB r ow n w as sent ence d t o proba t i on w hi l e C ar s on r ece i ved a f i f t eeny ea r sen tenc e. S h e o ffers no p roo f t o su p p o rtthes e a ll eg ati o n s. R eg ard less, the tri al co u rt ac ted w ith in it s d iscreti o n w h en im p o sing a sen tenc e o n C arso n that w as w ith in the statu tory g u id e lin e s . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I I . FACTU AL B ASI S F OR GU I LTY PLEA ¶9. C ar s on ar gues that the f actual bas i s f

or her gui l ty pl ea does not s upport r obbery and
cons t i tut es a deni al of

due pr oces s of

l aw . A ccor di ng t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 9 7 -3 -7 9 (R e v . 2 0 1 4 ): E very per s on w ho s hal l fe l oni ous l y t ake orat t emptt o t ake f r om the per s on or f r om the pr es ence the per s onal pr operty of anotherand agai ns thi s w i l l by v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p e rs o n b y th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n sh a ll b e g u ilty o f r o b b e ry . .

. . ¶ 1 0 . C a rso n c o n fe ss e d to ju m p in g o u t o f a v e h icle w ith tw o o th e r p e o p le, o n e o f th e m h e ld the gun, a nd one of

them dem anded m oney f r om Ram edi o V entur e. V entur e hande d them 1 hi s w al l et . C ar s on and t he otherdef endant s al s o conf

es s ed t o t w o ot herr obber i es thathad
o cc u rred in the are a. In o n e, th ey jum p e d o u t of a v eh icl e a n d sn atch ed A b rah am C ruz ’s apr on, w hi ch cont ai ned hi s w al l etand ce l l phone. I n another , they r obbed G as parG om ez Fr anci s co of

hi s w al l etby ki cki ng and punchi ng h i m . D ur i ng herpl ea c ol l oquy, C ar s on a d m itt e d th a t in e a c h o f th e se o ffe n se s sh e to o k p ro p e rty fr o m th e se p e o p le a g a in st th e ir w ill b y p lac in g th e m in fe a r o f im m e d iate in ju ry to th e ir p e rso n . A s s tate d a b o v e , “[s ]t a tem e n ts
m ade i n open courtunde roa th ‘ carry a s tr ong pr es um pt i on of ver aci ty. ’ ” C ane , 109 So. 3d

### 6

at571 ( ¶9) . C ar s on of

f er s no evi dence otherthan herow n as s ert i on thatw hats he pl eade d gui l ty t o a m ount s t o a cce s s ory a f t erthe f act . T he f

actual ba s i s f

orCar s on’ s pl ea meet s the
e lem e n ts o f a rm e d ro b b e ry . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V. E VI DE NT I AR Y HE AR I NG ¶11. C ar s on ar gues that the t ri al cou rt err ed i n f ai l i ng t o conduct an evi dent i ary hear i ng b e fo re su m m a rily d e n y in g h e r P C R m o tio n . T h e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s tate d : U nders ect i on 99- 39- 11( 2) of the M i s s i ssi pp i C ode, a tr i al courtm ay su m m aril y dism iss a p eti ti o n for PC R , w ith o u t h av ing he ld a n e v id en ti ary hear i ng , when i ti s c l e a rtha tthe p e t i t i on e ri s n ote nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f u ndert he [ M i s s i s s i ppi U ni f

orm Pos t - C onvi ct i on Col l at er al Rel i ef A ct ] . T hi s C our thas es t abl i s hed thatdi s m i s s al of a PC R m ot i on i s pr operw her e “i tappea r s beyond a doubtthatthe pl ai nt i f

f can pr ove no s etof

f act s i n s upportof

hi s c l ai m w hi ch w oul d ent i t l e hi m t o r el i ef . ” T u rn e r v . S ta te , 59 0 S o. 2d 87 1, 87 4 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ). Stat e v. Sant i ago , 7 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 3 -2 4 (¶ 1 1 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶ 1 2 . C a rso n re lies e n tirely o n h e r o w n a s s e rt io n s a s e v id e n c e th a t s h e is e n tit led to p o stcon vict i on rel i ef. T hese ba re as sert i on s ar e i n d i rectcon fl i ctw i th h er open -courtst at em ents . A s s t at ed above , “[ s ] t at ement s m ade i n open courtund er oath ‘ carry a s tr ong pr es um pt i on of ver aci ty. ’ ” C ane , 10 9 S o . 3d at 5 7 1 (¶9 ). T h e tri al co u rtw as e n ti tl ed to rely o n C arso n ’s
sw o rn sta tem e n ts. F u rth e rm o re , C a rs o n c a n p ro v e n o se t o f fa c ts th a t w o u ld e n tit le h e r to
r el i e f . The tr i a l c ou r tf

ou nd tha tCar s on k no w i ng l y a nd v ol un t a r i l y pl e a de d gu i l ty t o t he
cr i m e of r obbery a nd thats he w as s at i s f i ed w i th herr epr es ent at i on. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s , by C ar s on’ s ow n admi s s i on, thathertr i al couns el advi s ed heron the el ement s of , def ens es t o, and cons equenc es of

pl eadi ng gui l ty t o r obbery. T he tr i al courtact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on w hen s ent enci ng Car s on t o a t erm w i thi n the s t atut ory r ange. C ar s on of f er ed no new or

### 7

addi t i onal pr oof

otherthan h er ow n af

f i davi t . U pon r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e f

i nd the tr i al
c o u rt p ro p e rly d e n ied C a rso n ’s P C R m o tio n . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V. DENI AL OF THE M OTI ON FOR P CR ¶13. C ar s on al l eges thatthe tr i al courterr ed by denyi ng the PC R m ot i on wi tho ut eval uat i ng the cl ai m s of

the m ot i on orm aki ng any s peci f i c f i ndi ngs on the i ndi vi dual cl ai m s . A s s t at ed above, C ar s on r el i es s ol el y on he row n bar e as s ert i ons w i thoutof f er i ng any new oraddi t i onal pr oof t o supporthercl ai m s . T he tr i al courtr evi ew ed the r ecor d and f ound C ar s on’ s m ot i on to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. W e a ff irm . VI . CUM ULATI VE E RROR ¶1 4. Fi nal l y, Car s on c on t e nd s tha ta l l o f the e rr or s i n he rc a s e , t a ke n t ogether , w arr ant reli ef. U nd er the cu m ulat i ve-errordo ctri n e, i n d ividu al errors “ m ay co m b ine w ith o ther e rrors t o m ake up r ever s i bl e err or , w her e the cumul at i ve ef f ectof al l err or s depr i ves the def endant of a f undament al l y f

ai rtr i al . ” R o ss v . S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1018 ( ¶138) ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng B y ro m v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 847 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2003) ) . “H ow ever , w her e ther e i s no err or i n part , ther e ca n be no r ever s i bl e err ort o the w hol e. ” H a rr is v . S ta te , 970 So. 2d 151, 157 ( ¶24) ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng G ibso n v. State , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 8 (¶ 3 1 ) ( M is s . 1 9 9 8 )) . F in d in g n o e rro r, th e re c a n b e n o c u m u lativ e e rro r. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 15. THE J UDG M ENT OF THE M ADI S ON COUNT Y CI RCUI T COURT DENYI NG THE M OTI ON FOR PO ST- CO NV I CT I O N R ELI EF I S AFFI RM ED. ALL COS TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO M ADI S ON COUNT Y. I RV I NG AN D G RI F F I S , P . J J . , B AR NE S , I S HE E , RO B E RT S , CA RL T ON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.