Title: Triplett v. State
Citation: 579 So. 2d 555
Docket Number: 89-KA-1267
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: April 24, 1991

579 So. 2d 555 (1991) Michael TRIPLETT v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 89-KA-1267. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 24, 1991. *556 Hugh Hathorn, Fair Mayo &amp; Hathorn, Louisville, for appellant. Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Patricia W. Sproat, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and McRAE, JJ. ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, for the Court: This appeal is taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Winston County denying Michael Triplett's motion pursuant to the Mississippi Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act for an out of time appeal following an evidentiary hearing. For reasons that follow, we reverse and render. On November 6, 1988, Michael Triplett was tried for murder, convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to serve twenty (20) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Triplett was nineteen years of age at the time of trial and had completed the eleventh grade. Prior to trial, Triplett's parents employed Richard Burdine, Esq., of Columbus, Mississippi, to represent Triplett. Mr. Burdine stated that the contractual arrangement "most likely included an appeal." Attorney Burdine admonished his clients to pay his fee prior to trial. Neither Triplett nor his parents paid the entire fee. Attorney Burdine says they paid $500.00. The Tripletts say they paid more than $1,000.00, but concede the entire fee was not paid. After sentence was imposed, Triplett and his parents met with his employed counsel and discussed an appeal. Triplett desired and requested an appeal. He obtained his release on a $30,000.00 appeal bond and left the court related matters in the hands of his retained counsel. Here the crossroads of attorney/client relationship show divergent paths of comprehension. Attorney Burdine stresses that the appeal was conditioned on prepayment of the cost bill and the Supreme Court filing fee which was not paid by his clients. Two letters, dated December 12, 1988, and January 6, 1989, respectively, were introduced during the evidentiary hearing to prove the attorney's position. The January 6, 1989 letter, written by Mr. Burdine's paralegal per his request states in part: Triplett says he did not receive either of the letters. The record shows the following relevant events occurred after Triplett's trial, conviction, and sentence on November 6, 1988, excluding the two letters mentioned above: *557 Upon conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Triplett's motion and entered an order which states, in part: (emphasis added) Triplett was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that within the time for giving notice of appeal, he asked his attorney to appeal and his attorney through no fault of Triplett failed to perfect an appeal. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(7) (Supp. 1990); Fair v. State, 571 So. 2d 965 (Miss. 1990); Barnett v. State, 497 So. 2d 443 (Miss. 1986); Wilson v. State, 426 So. 2d 792 (Miss. 1983); Jones v. State, 355 So. 2d 89 (Miss. 1978). Triplett charged, his attorney admitted, and the trial court found, that the attorney was employed to carry the case to conclusion, including an appeal. Triplett wanted and requested an appeal. Mr. Burdine attempts to excuse his failure to timely perfect an appeal on the ground he had not been paid in accordance with the fee agreement and that he wrote two letters advising his client that the court fees and court costs must be paid prior to the appeal being taken. Within the boundaries of this scenario is the admission and undisputed fact that Attorney Burdine took no action to withdraw from representation of his client, Triplett. The trial court record of the evidentiary hearing reveals the following question to and answer by Attorney Burdine: Q. Did you ever file a motion to withdraw in the case? A. No, I did not. In Myers v. Mississippi State Bar, 480 So. 2d 1080 (Miss. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 813, 107 S. Ct. 64, 93 L. Ed. 2d 23 (1986), we announced the requirements applicable when an attorney representing a client in any court of record in this state seeks to withdraw from further representation. In Myers, we stated: Having contracted to pursue an appeal, it is incumbent upon an attorney to fulfill those obligations. Cf. Allison v. State, 436 So. 2d 792 (Miss. 1983). If grounds for withdrawal or termination exist, the attorney must seek the court's permission to properly withdraw from representation, but incumbent upon the attorney is the duty to take all necessary steps to protect the defendant's right of appeal. It is true that subsequent to trial and conviction of their clients, trial counsel may find themselves on the horn of dilemma, unsure whether or not to appeal. But the answer lies in the cloak of responsibility adorned by every criminal trial attorney when employment is accepted or appointment is made by the court. Unilateral withdrawal is manifestly not the solution. The problems of withdrawal may be more difficult than the British Army from Dunkirk but the requirements prerequisite to termination of attorney/client relationship remain paramount. Our rules and case law mandate written court permission to withdraw from representation prior to completion of the contract. Nothing less will suffice. Something else is worthy of comment. Triplett was tried and convicted on November 6, 1988. He was released on appeal bond on November 22, 1988. The letter written for Mr. Burdine to Triplett on January 6, 1989, requested costs so he "can perfect your appeal to the Supreme Court." The document is positive proof that Attorney Burdine still represented Triplett for appeal purposes at that time. When the undisputed testimony adduced in the trial court is considered, it becomes apparent that this case falls within the ambit of Wilson v. State, 426 So. 2d 792 (Miss. 1983). In Wilson, we concluded that the trial court erred in ruling against a petition for an out of time appeal where undisputed testimony supported the allegations and was not contradicted by physical facts or facts within common knowledge. In such a situation, we accept the petitioner's testimony and allegations as true. There is another matter of moment. Triplett asserts that he was never advised by his attorney that if he had become indigent and could not pay the court costs or his lawyer, he could file a pauper's affidavit and proceed with the appeal in form pauperis. The State contends that in Bennett v. State, 293 So. 2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1974), we took the position that there is no constitutional obligation to inform a convicted defendant represented by retained counsel at his trial that he may appeal in forma pauperis. Indeed this is what Bennett expresses. And while Bennett is factually inapplicable *559 because Attorney Burdine's contractual obligations included pursuing an appeal, we welcome the opportunity to reject a former pronouncement which, like the dinosaur, has become extinct. Much water has run under the bridge since the birth of Bennett. Its bedrock was the premise that different standards should be applied when a defendant is represented by retained counsel instead of counsel appointed by the court. In retrospect one wonders why the right to meaningful assistance of counsel should be set apart exclusively for the indigents. Ineffectiveness of counsel should not be excused simply because counsel has been privately retained. In step with the trends of time, the United States Supreme Court in 1980 addressed the problem in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S. Ct. 1708, 64 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1980), and held there was no justifiable basis for maintaining such a dual standard. This Court too has recognized that for purposes of measuring the constitutional effectiveness of counsel, nothing turns on whether counsel was appointed or retained. Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832, 837 n. 1 (Miss. 1983); Culberson v. State, 412 So. 2d 1184, 1185-86 (Miss. 1982). The double standard of Bennett is no longer viable. We therefore take this opportunity to expressly overrule that portion of Bennett, and any other case, which attempts to draw a relevant distinction between court appointed and retained counsel where a defendant's right to appeal and effective assistance of counsel is concerned. See also Rogers v. State, 307 So. 2d 551, 553 (Miss. 1975); Miller v. State, 231 So. 2d 178 (Miss. 1970). Finally, we note that, insofar as the record indicates, the running of the time for filing notice of appeal under our Supreme Court Rules was tolled for a substantial period of time following entry of final judgment due to Triplett's minority. See Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 4(f). This is another factor which the trial court should have considered in deciding whether to grant Triplett an out of time appeal. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the order of the trial court denying the motion for an out of time appeal and direct the trial court to permit the appeal. LOWER COURT'S DENIAL OF POSTCONVICTION RELIEF REVERSED AND RENDERED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.