Opinion ID: 1670877
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Advise as to Nature of Crimes, Possible Defenses, and Consequences of a Guilty Plea

Text: ¶ 29. Reeder next alleges that his attorney failed to advise him as to the nature of the charges against him, his possible defenses, and the consequences of entering a guilty plea. Reeder indicated at the hearing that he understood the charges against him. ¶ 30. If the defendant is advised regarding the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of the entry of the plea, it is considered voluntary and intelligent. Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d at 1172. In other words, the defendant must be instructed that a guilty plea waives his rights to a jury trial, to confront adverse witnesses, and protection against self-incrimination. Id. ¶ 31. The record reveals that the trial judge advised Reeder that if he pled guilty, he was waiving his right to a trial by jury. She further informed him that after the State calls and questions their witnesses, you have the opportunity to confront those witnesses by what we call cross-examination. Finally, the trial judge advised Reeder that he had the right to remain silent throughout the trial. She then asked Reeder, knowing all of the rights you're waiving this morning by pleading guilty, do you still want to plead guilty to these two charges? Reeder responded affirmatively. ¶ 32. Though there is no indication in the record that Reeder's attorney advised him of the aforementioned rights he waived by pleading guilty, the trial judge did provide him with that information. A strong but rebuttable presumption exists that counsel's conduct falls within a broad range of reasonable professional assistance. McQuarter v. State, 574 So.2d 685, 687 (Miss.1990). To overcome this presumption, Reeder must show that he would have insisted on going to trial had he been correctly informed. Alexander, 605 So.2d at 1173. Reeder was indicted for armed robbery, kidnapping, and burglary. Had he gone to trial, he faced the possibility of receiving two life sentences for the armed robbery and kidnapping and twenty-five years for burglary of an inhabited dwelling. Instead, Reeder received a ten-year sentence for armed robbery and a ten year sentence for kidnapping to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for armed robbery. Moreover, the State agreed to nol pros the burglary charge. Reeder has failed to establish that had his attorney advised him of the nature of the charges, his possible defenses, and the consequences of a guilty plea that he would have insisted on proceeding to trial.