I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CP - 0 0 0 3 4 - S CT CHR I S TOP HER J AS ON B UR RO UGH v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 17/ 2006 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . C . E . M O R G A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CARROLL COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: PRO SE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A . K LI N G FU SS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: DOUG E VANS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L- POST CON VI CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 02/ 2009 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea i n the C i r cui t C our t of C arr ol l C ounty, C hri st op herJ as on B u rro u g h filed a m o tio n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n c o llate ra l re lief ( P C R ) se e k in g to se t as id e h is convi ct i on and s ent ence . T he t r i al cour tfound thi s m ot i on t o be w i thoutm er i t , and B urr ough n o w a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. F in d in g n o e rro r, th is C o u rt a ffirm s th e trial c o u rt.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. C hr i s t opherJ as on B urr ough w as i nd i ct ed by the C arr oll C ou nty G r and J ury f or bur gl ary of

a dw el l i ng hous e i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 17- 23. B urr ou gh pet i t i oned the tr i al courtt o ent era pl ea of gui l ty, and on M ay 4, 2006, pl eade d

### The rec ord indic at esthat Burrough and anothe r indivi dualwere s uspe ct ed of having 1 

### broke n int o Ashm ore ’s Wre cke r Se rvi cees ta bli shm ent and rem oving c ar

“rim s. ” 2 gui l ty t o the cha r ge bef

or e C i r cui tC our tJ udge C . E . M or gan. J udge M or gan f ound the pl ea to b e fre e ly , v o lu n tar ily , an d in tellig e n tly g iv e n , w ith B u rro u g h o p e n ly a d m itt in g h is g u ilt . T he St at e made a sent enci ng re comm endat i on t o the tr i al courtthatB urr ough be s ent ence d t o a t erm of

t en year s , w i th f

i ve year s t o be s erved i n the cus t ody o f the M i ssi s s i ppi D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s a n d th e o th e r fiv e u n d e r p o st-re lea se su p e rv isio n . A t th a t p o in t, the f ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: B Y T H E C O U R T : O k a y . I w ill p o stp o n e se n ten c in g u n til M a y th e 1 5 th in Ca rr o l l t o n . Yo u a r e o u to n b o n d r i g h tn o w? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y e s , s ir . B Y T H E C O U R T : H e re is th e d e a l. I’m g o in g to le a v e y o u o u t o n b o n d u n til the 15th. I f

you vi ol at e t he l aw i n any w ay betw een now and then, I ’ m not goi ng t o acc eptthi s r ecomm endat i on, a nd I w i l l j us ts ent ence you t o w hat ever I thi nk you oughtt o have. B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es, si r. B Y T H E C O U R T : If

yo u d o n ot appear on the 15 th, the sam e t hing app l i es. D o you under s t and me? B Y T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y e s , s ir . ¶ 3 . B u rro u g h d id n o t a p p e a r in c o u rt o n M a y 1 5 . A b e n c h w a rra n t w a s th e n iss u e d fo r h is arr es t . B urr ough w as arr es t ed thatni ghtout s i de B i l l A s hm or e’ s W r ecke rSer vi ce es t abl i s hm entby a deputy f r om the G r enada Count y Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce w ho had bee n not i f

i ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol thattw o of i t s patr ol m en had de t ai ned B urr ough atthat lo c a tio n o n su sp icio n o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity a t th e e sta b lish m e n t. 13

¶4. Ju d ge M organ held a sent encing heari ng on M ay 17 , 20 06 , du ri ng w h ich h e h ea rd t es t i m ony f

r om m ul t i pl e i ndi vi dual s r egar di ng B urr ough’ s act i ons on M ay 15. A tthe co n clusi on of the sentenci ng heari ng , Judg e M organ sen t enced B u rrou g h to tw en ty-fi v e y ea rs i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , the maxi m um s ent ence al l ow ed by Sect i on 97- 17- 23. ¶ 5 . Bu rr o u g h f

i l e d a M o t i o n t o V a c a t e a n d S e tAs i d e Co n v i c t i o n a n d S e n t e n c e ( P CR m o tio n ) in th e trial c o u rt o n M a y 8 , 2 0 0 7 . Ju d g e M o rg a n fo u n d th e iss u e s ra ise d th e re in to be w i thoutm er i tand deni ed the mot i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶6 . T h is C o u rt rev iew s the dism issal o f a po st- co n v ict ion -reli ef m o ti o n for an ab u se-o fd is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . B illio t v . S ta te, 655 So. 2d 1, 12 ( M i s s . 1995) . T he t ri al courtm ay s um m ar i l y di s m i s s a mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef “[ i ] f i tpl ai nl y a ppear s f

r om the f ace o f th e m o tio n , an y a n n e x e d e x h ib its a n d th e p rio r p ro c e e d in g s in th e c a se 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 . § 9 9 -3 9 -1 1 (2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). L E G A L A N A L Y S IS ¶7. B ef

or e addr es s i ng t he m er i t s of B urr ough’ s appeal , a proc edural m at t erneeds t o be di s cus s ed. T he St at e as s ert s t hatt w o of the f ouri s s ues pr es ent ed her e by B urr ough on appea l ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed. T he St at e poi nt s outthat , al though al l f ouras s i gnm ent s of

err or we r e r a i s e d i n th e P CR mo t i o n f i l e d o n M a y 8 , 2 0 0 7 , Bu rr o u g h f i l e d a h a n d wr i t t e n P CR m o ti o n o n A u g u st 2 9 , 20 0 6 , w h ich c o n tai n ed o n ly tw o o f th ese issue s. T h e S tat e the refo re su b m its th a t an y a d d iti o n a l as sig n m e n ts o f e rro r ra ise d b y B u rro u g h su b se q u e n t to h is o r i g i n a l P CR mo t i o n s h o u l d b e b a rr e d f r o m r e v i e w.4

¶8. E ven t hough t he r ecor d dem ons tr at es t hi s t o be accur at e hi s t ory, t he St at e’ s ar gum ent s h o u l d n o tb e a c c e p t e d i n th i s ma t t e r . Th e r e c o r d i n d e e d r e v e a l s th a tBu rr o u g h f i l e d a P CR m ot i on on A ugus t29, 2006; how ever , i tdoes noti ndi cat e thata j udgm entw as everent er ed w i th re gar d t o i t . B urr ough fi l ed a w r i tof m andamus pet i t i on w i th thi s C our ton J anuary 7, 2008, r eques t i ng thi s C ou rtt o comm and “the C i r cui tC our tof C arr ol l C ounty t o r ender jud g m en t or co n d u ct an ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g ” o n the P C R m o ti o n fi led b y him in tha t cou rt on M a y 8, 2 00 7. I n hi s r e s po ns e t o the p e t i t i on , J ud ge M or ga n s t a t e d t hathe had no r ecol l ect i on of eve rre cei vi ng and exam i ni ng t he A ugus t29, 2006, P C R m ot i on, and t hatthe court ’ s docketr ef

l ect ed no act i on w as e vert aken w i th r egar d t o thatm ot i on. J udge M or gan di d, how ever , r eca l l rul i ng on B urr ough’ s M ay 8, 2007, P C R m ot i on s hor t l y af t err ece i vi ng i t , butadded thatthe tr i al courtdoes notr et ai n exec ut ed copi es of pos t - convi ct i on -r el i ef or der s , and thatthe tr i al court ’ s ci vi l and cr i m i nal docket s both i ndi cat ed thatno or derw as e v e rf i l e d . To a v o i d a n y c o n f u s i o n , J u d g e M o r g a n d e c i d e d t o r e - e x a mi n e th e M a y 8 th P CR m ot i on att ache d t o the w r i tof m andamus pe t i t i on, t ogetherw i th the pl ea tr ans cr i pt s i n the c rim in a l ca se a n d fo u n d n o m e rit to th e m o tio n . B a se d o n th a t d e c isio n , this C o u rt n o w sits i n a pos i t i on t o r evi ew thatf i nal j udgm ent , a nd may addr es s e ach as s i gnm entof err orr ai s ed i n thatm ot i on w i thoutpr ocedur al ordoctr i nal conce rn. I . W het her B urrough w as deni ed due proces s ri ght s w hen he w as not al l ow ed t o w i t hdraw hi s gui l t y pl ea af t er t he t ri al court det erm i ned it w o u ld n o t f

o llo w th e S ta te ’s r e c o m m e n d e d s e n te n c e . ¶9 . B u rrou g h argu es tha t h e sh o u ld ha v e b ee n give n th e o p p o rtu n ity to w ith d ra w h is gui l ty pl ea w hen the tr i al courtr ef us ed t o acc eptthe St at e’ s sent enci ng re comm endat i on of f i ve yea r s t o be s erved i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i ons a nd f

i ve5

y e a r s u n d e rp o s t - r e l e a s e s u p e r v i s i o n . I ti s Bu rr o u g h ’ s p o s i t i o n th a th e wo u l d h a v e wi th d r a wn h is gu il ty p lea h ad h e k n o w n the tri al co u rtw as n o t go ing to fo llo w th e S tat e’s re c o m m e n d a tio n . ¶10. Fi r s t , i ti s w el l - s ett l ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi t hatthe i m pos i t i on of a s ent ence upon a cr i m i nal convi ct i on bel ongs w i t hin the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al court( notthe pr os ecut or ) and gener al l y i s nots ubj ectt o appel l at e r eview if iti s w i thi n the l i m i t s pr es cr i bed by the a p p lic a b le s ta tu te . R e

y n o ld s v. S ta te, 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ); R eed v. State, 536 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); B oyington v. S tate, 3 8 9 S o . 2 d 4 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ); A in s w o r th v. S ta te, 304 So. 2d 656, 658 ( M i s s . 1974) . T hi s i ncl udes s ent ence s bas ed on gui l ty pl eas . So l ong as the j udge r emai ns uni nvol ved i n a ny pl ea negot i at i ons be tw een the def endantand the St at e, i tw i l l notbe r ever s i bl e err orf ora tr i al j udge t o s ent ence a def endant to a lo n g e r t e rm th a n th a t r e c o m m e n d e d b y th e S ta te . E dw ar ds v. State, 800 So. 2d 454, 470 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶11. Secondl y, the dec i s i on of w hethert o a l l ow a de f

endantt o w i thdr aw a val i d gui l ty pl ea a ls o lie s w ith in th e d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt . M is s . U n if. C ir . & C ty . R . 8 .0 4 (A )( 5 ). A gui l ty pl ea w i l l be f

ound va l i d i f

i ti s s how n t o have be en vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y m ade 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 . K in gv. S ta te, 73 8 S o. 2 d 2 40 , 24 1 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). T o d et erm i ne w hetherthe p l ea i s volunt ari l y an d int el l i gen t l y g i ven , the tr i al co u rt m 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 , a s w el l as the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e p le a . H ar r is v. State, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶ 1 2 . T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t, pr io r to a c c e p tin g B u rro u g h ’s p lea , Ju d g e M o rg a n th o ro u g h ly quer i ed h i m w i th r e ga r d t o the vo l un t a r i ne s s of hi s pl e a , c a r e f

ul l y e xp l a i ne d t o h i m t hat

### I n hi s s i gn e d pl e ap e ti ti on , B ur r ou gha c kn ow l e dg e d that h eund e r s t oo d ap l eaof 2 

### guilty t o thecrim e of

burgl ar y of a dwel ling housecarrie s with i t a poss ibl e se nte nceof three years to twenty-fiv e years imp risonment an d th at there w as no gu arantee b y th e State as to wh at leng th th e court might impo se. 6 w hat evers ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on the St at e of f er ed w oul d notha ve t o be a cce pt ed by the court , and i nf

or m ed B urr ough thatthe C our ti ns t ead c oul d i m pos e any s ent ence a l l ow ed by law . Ju d g e M o rg a n sp e c ifica lly to ld B u rro u g h th a t th is p a rticu lar c rim e c a rrie d w ith it a m i nim um o f t hr ee ye ar s and a maxi m um of tw enty- f

i ve yea r s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . B urr ough openl y i ndi cat ed thathe f ul l y under s t ood thi s . H e then pl eade d gui l ty t o the cha r ge of bur gl ary of

a dw el l i ng, and the St at e of f er ed 2 i t s re comm ended s ent ence d. T he r ecor d does nots ugges ti n the s l i ght es tthatthe tr i al j udge i nvol ved hi m s el f

i n a ny pl ea- bar gai ni ng ne got i at i ons thatmi ghthave oc curr ed betw een the S ta te a n d th e d e fe n d a n t in th is m a tte r. ¶ 1 3 . A s e v in c e d b y b o th th e p le a a g re e m e n t an d th e p lea c o llo q u y , B u rro u g h w ill fu lly acknow l edged thathe f ul l y under s t ood thatthe St at e’ s p rom i s e t o r ecomm end a s ent ence carr i ed w i th i tno guar ant ee thati t s re comm endat i on w oul d bi nd the tr i al courtt o a part i cul ar s ent ence upon a pl ea of gui l ty. T her ef

or e, nei therthe tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o s ent ence B u rro u g h to th e m a x im u m a m o u n t allo w e d b y M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -1 7 -2 3 , n o r its s ubs equentdeci s i on t o deny B urr ough’ s pl ea- w i thdr aw al r eques t , w as an abus e of di s cr et i on. B u rr o u g h ’s a rg u m e n t w ith re g a rd to th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W het her B urrough w as deni ed d ue proces s of l aw w hen t he t ri al court f ai l ed t o cons i der t he f

act ual basi s f

or t he gui l t y pl ea.7

¶ 1 4 . P u rsua n t to R u le 8 .0 4 (A )(3 ) o f th e U n ifo rm C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt R u les , “ [b ]efo re th e trial c o u rt m a y a c c e p t a p lea o f g u ilty , the c o u rt m u st d e ter m in e th a t th e p lea is vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y m ade and thatt her e i s a f actualba sis fo r th e p lea .” (E m p h a sis added) . T he f

actual - bas i s com ponentof the rul e r equi r es t hat , “bef or e i tm ay acc eptthe pl ea, th e c ir c u it c o u rt h a v e b e fo re it, in tera lia , su b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t th e a c c u se d d id c o m m it the l egal l y def

i ned of f ens e t o w hi ch he i s of

f er i ng the pl ea. ” Cor ley v. State, 585 So. 2d 765, 76 7 (M i ss. 19 91 ). W hat fact s m ustbe sho w n d epen ds on the cri m e and i t s ass ort ed elem ents . I d. T h ere are n u m ero u s w ay s by w h ich th e fac ts m ay be fou n d , bu t w h at ult im a tely is r equi r ed i s “ther e mustbe enough t hatthe courtm ay s ay w i th conf i dence the pr os ecut i on coul d pr ove the acc us ed gui l ty of the cr i m e cha r ged. ” I

d . ( ci t i ng U

n ite d S ta te s v. B r o c e, 488 U .S . 5 6 3 , 5 7 0 , 1 0 9 S . C t. 7 5 7 , 7 6 4 , 1 0 2 L . E d . 2 d 9 2 7 , 9 3 6 (1 9 8 9 )) . ¶ 1 5 . A t th e g u ilty -p le a h e a ri n g , th e S tate in fo rm e d th e trial c o u rt th a t ith a d m u lti p le w itn e ss e s w h o se tes tim o n ies w o u ld sh o w th a t B u rro u g h b ro k e into a h o m e a n d th e re in sto le pr operty. T he St at e al s o t ol d the tr i al courtthatitw as pr epar ed t o of f ert es t i m ony that B u rro u g h w a s in ter v iew e d sh o rtly a fte r th e a lleg e d c rim e a n d a d m itt e d to tak in g th e p ro p e rty and di s pos i ng of

i t . W hen as ked by the tr i al c our ti f he di d, i n f

act , do thes e thi ngs w hi ch the St at e i nt ended t o pr ove, B urr ough s t at ed, “Y es . ” ¶1 6 . T h e rec o rd b efo re the C o u rt clea rl y rev ea ls th at the tr ial co u rt ac ce p ted B u rrou g h ’s v o lu n tar ily a n d in tellig e n tly -m a d e p lea b a se d o n a su ffic ien t ev id e n tiary su g g e stio n o f g u ilt t o the cha r ged cr i m e of

bur gl ary. B urr ough’ s a r gum entthatthe tr i al courtacc ept ed hi s pl ea w ith o u t a fa c tu a l b a s is is w ith o u t m e ri t.N o te, tha t M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 9 -35 -10 1 h as b ee n am en d ed sinc e B u rrou g h ’s 3 c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e in M a y 2 0 0 6 . See 2008 M i s s . L aw s , ch. 457, § 1, ef f . fr om and af

t er J ul y 1, 2008. T he f

or m ers ect i on, how ever , i s con t rol l i ng i n thi s m att er , ther ef or e the resp o n se a n d an a ly sis t o B u rrou g h ’s po int i n co n tention w il l be re str ict ed to this C o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of

thats ect i on as i texi s t ed. 8 I I I . W het her B urrough w as deni ed due proces s of l aw w h en t he t ri al court al l egedl y f

ai l ed t o t el l hi m t hat hi s s ent ence c oul d be app eal ed t o t h e S u p r e m e Co u r t f o r d i r e c t r e v i e w. ¶ 1 7 . B u rro u g h c o n te n d s th a t th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e in fo rm e d h im o f th e a b ili ty to di r ect l y appea l hi s s ent ence t o the Supr eme C our t . H e ar gues the tr i al j udge comm i t t ed f undament al err orw hen he f ai l ed t o advi s e B urr ough of thi s avenue of r evi ew . W e di s agr ee. ¶1 8. M i s s i s s i ppi l aw prohi bi t s pe r s on s w ho ha ve pl e a de d g ui l ty t o a c r i me f r om f i l i ng di r ectappea l s t o thi s C our t . M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 35- 101( 2006) . A s s uch, thi s C our tdoes 3
n o t h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l to a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f a g u ilty p le a . B ennett v. State, 865 So. 2d 1158, 1159 ( M i s s . 2004). T he pr operpr ocedur e i s f orthes e per s ons t o f

i l e a p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n c o llate ra l re lief in th e c irc u it co u rt See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 9 9 -3 9 -1 to -2 9 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶19. B urr ough i s corr ectthatthi s C our thas f ound j ur i s di ct i on i n cert ai n i nst ances ov er m a tte rs in v o lv in g a d ir e c t a p p e a l f ro m a s e n te n c e im p o s e d u n d e r a g u ilty p le a . See e
. g. T r o tte rv. S ta te, 554 So. 2d 313 ( M i s s . 1989). I n any suc h cas e, how ever , thi s C our tl i m i t ed its e lf to th e s e n te n c e o n ly . See B e r r y v. S ta te, 722 So. 2d 706, 707 ( M i s s . 1998) ( r es tr i ct i ng re v iew o f a d ire c tly a p p e a led c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e b a se d o n a g u ilty p lea to th e v a lid ity o f th e se n ten c e ); see al so B e n n e tt, 8 65 S o. 2d at1159 (dism issi n g alt o g ethe r pe ti ti o n er’s9

a p p e a l, w h ich a ttem p ted to a rg u e th e m e rits o f e n h a n c e m e n t p u n ish m e n t in re latio n to h is g u il ty p lea, f

o r l ac k o f j u ri sd ict ion ). ¶ 2 0 . B a se d o n h is a rg u m e n t fo r th is i ss u e , B u rro u g h u se s h is se n ten c e to a ttac k h is g u ilty p lea . H a d h e a ttem p ted to d o so v ia d ire c t ap p e a l, th is C o u rt eith e r w o u ld h a v e d ism iss e d h is c laim o u trig h t ( s ee B e n n e tt , 856 So. 2d at1159) , or , f orthe r eas ons s t at ed i n the f i r s ti s s ue, s i mp l y wo u l d h a v e f

o u n d h i s s e n t e n c e t o b e wi th i n th e l i mi ta l l o we d b y l a w ( s ee B erry , 772 So. 2d at707) . T hi s , though, i s s pecul at i ve hi nds i ght . Forourpurposes, as the C ou rtof A ppeal s r ece nt l y opined, o ur l aw has neverr equi r ed a tr i al j udge t o i nf or m a cr i m i nal def endantaboutthe r i ghtt o appea l di r ect l y the s ent ence r ecei ved bas ed on a gui l ty pl ea. Co le m a n v. S ta te, 9 7 9 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 3 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V . W het her t he act i ons of B urrough’ s at t orney equat ed t o i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

c ounselt hereby vi ol at i ng hi s c onst i t ut i onal r i ght t o a fa ir t r ia l. ¶21. B urr ough as s ert s t hat hi s def ens e couns el w as def

i ci ent beca us e he f

ai l ed t o obj ect w hen the tr i al courtenhanc ed hi s s ent ence w i thoutgi vi ng hi m the opportuni ty t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l ty pl ea. A ddi t i onal l y, Burr ough a s s ert s thatc ouns el w as de f i ci entf ornoti nf or m i ng hi m t hat he coul d be s ent ence d as an habi tual of f ender ; thathi s s ent ence m i ghthave be en ille g a l; a n d th a t h e w o u ld n o t b e g ra n te d p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n fo r p a rt o f h is s e n te n c e . ¶22 . In eval uati ng an inef fect i ve-ass i st ance c harge w i th regard t o g uil ty-pl ea proceed i ng s, thi s C our t , es s ent i al l y, appl i es the s ame tw o- parti nqui ry as thatus ed f orchal l enges cl ai m i ng in e ff e c tiv e tr ia l a s s is ta n c e . See Colem an v. State, 483 So. 2d 680 ( M i s s . 1986) ( adopt i ng the tw o- pr onged t es ts etf

or th i n H ill v . L o c k h a r t, 474 U . S. 52, 106 S. C t . 366, 88 L . E d. 2d 203, ( 1985) , w hi ch hel d t hatthe tw o- partt es tannounce d i n S tr ic k la n d v. W a s h in g to n , 46 6 U. S.10

668, 687, 104 S. C t . 20 52, 2064- 65, 80 L . E d. 2d 674, 693- 95 ( 1984) f ori nef f ect i ve tr i al a ss ista n c e c la im s a lso a p p lies to g u ilty -p lea p ro c e e d in g s). T h is re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to s how : ( 1) t hathi s counse l ’ s per f or m ance w as def

i ci ent( f el l bel ow the obj ect i ve s t andar d of re a s o n a b le n e s s ), a n d (2 ) th a t th e d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . Str i ckland, 466 U . S. at 687. I n the cont extof

gui l ty pl eas , thi s m eans the def endantm us ts how that , w er e i tnotf or c o u n se l’s e rro rs, h e w o u ld n o t ha v e p lea d e d g u ilty a n d w o u ld h a v e in sis ted o n g o in g to trial. Cole m an, 4 8 3 S o . 2 d at 68 3 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶23. B urr ough’ s char ge thathi s couns el f ai l ed t o obj ectw hen the tr i al courtdi d not acc ept the St at e’ s r ecomm ended s ent ence c hi ef l y f ai l s unde rpr ong tw o, the “pr ej udi ce” pr ong, of Str i ckl and. T h e re fo re , w e p ro c e e d d ir e c tly to th is p a rt o f t h e te s t. See Str i ckland, 46 6 U. S. 668, 697 ( “I f

i ti s eas i ert o di s pos e of an i nef f ect i venes s cl ai m on the gr ou nd o f l ack of su ffi cien t prejud ice, w h ich w e e x p ec t w il l oft en b e so , that co u rse sh o u ld b e fo ll o w ed . ”) ¶24. W hetherornotcouns el ’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on nott o acc ept the St at e’ s r ecomm endat i on f el l bel ow the obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s cont empl at ed by Str i ckl

and i s of no matt e r . The e rr or , i f a ny , i s on e tha tor i gi na t e d s ub s e qu e ntt o the court ’ s acc ept ance of

a val i d gu i l t y pl ea, af t eri tw as det erm i ned t o be vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y gi ven, bas ed on an ac know l edged unde r s t andi ng by the def endantthatany

“ c o n se q u e n c e s” a llo w e d b y law c o u ld re su lt. T h e re fo re , B u rro u g h c a n n o t p ro p e rly demonstr at e the “pr ej udi ce” r equi r ements etf or th by Colem an , w hi ch cont empl at es the
v a lid ity o f t h e p le a its e lf , n o t th e tria l c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n th e re a ft e r. Colem an , 483 So. 2d at 6 8 0 .11

¶25. A s f

orBurr ough’ s r emai ni ng i nef f ect i venes s char ges , the r ecor d w hol l y negat es the bas i s f oreac h. J udge M or gan s peci f i cal l y t ol d B urr ough t hathe w as notbei ng sent ence d as an h abitual of

fender; no r w as he so d esi gn at ed in the sentenci ng order. A l so, be ca u se B urr ough’ s tw enty- f

i ve- years ent ence l i es w i thi n the l i m i t s pr es cr i bed by Sect i on 97- 17- 23, it i s n o t il leg a l. F in a lly , w ith re g a rd to th e a ss e rt io n th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l fa iled to tell h im thathe w oul d notr ece i ve pos t - r el eas e supervi si on, the r ecor d ( once mor e) di s cl os es that B urr ough’ s def

ens e couns el and the tr i al j udge bo t h t horoughl y l ed hi m thr ough the pl ea process t o en sure that he u n d erst oo d h i s pl ea did no tgu arant ee him ei ther post -r el ease s u p e rv is io n o r a p a rt ic u la r s e n te n c e . ¶26. I t i s the f

i ndi ng of thi s C our t that B urr ough’ s cl ai m that hi s couns el ’ s r epr es ent at i on w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly in e ffe c tiv e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 7 . T h is C o u rt fin d s th e trial c o u rt d id n o t e rr in d ism iss in g B u rro u g h ’s p e tit io n fo r p o stco n v ict ion co l l at eral rel ief w ith o u t an e v iden ti ary h ea ri n g . T h e jud g m en t of th e C ir cu itC o u rt o f C a rr o ll C o u n ty is a ff ir m e d . ¶ 2 8 . AFF I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, K IT C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ . , C O N C U R . G R A V E S , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN RE S UL T ONL Y.