Opinion ID: 1128574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was ashby denied effective assistance of counsel?

Text: Ashby complains that his attorney did not inform him of his minimum sentence or his privilege against self incrimination. In Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 378, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2584-85, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated: A laymen will ordinarily be unable to recognize counsel's errors and to evaluate counsel's professional performance; cf. Powell v. Alabama, supra, 287 U.S., at 69, 53 S.Ct., at 64; consequently, a criminal defendant will rarely know that he has not been represented competently until after trial or appeal, usually when he consults another lawyer about his case. Indeed, an accused will often not realize that he has a meritorious ineffectiveness claim until he begins collateral review proceedings. Kimmelman, 477 U.S. at 378, 106 S.Ct. 2584-85. Thus, Ashby feels that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The standard in determining ineffective counsel is well settled law. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Gilliard v. State, 462 So.2d 710, 714 (Miss. 1985) ( quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Furthermore, trial counsel is presumed to be competent. Brooks v. State, 573 So.2d 1350, 1353 (Miss. 1990). At the hearing, the court noted that Ashby was familiar with the judicial system. Ashby confirmed that his counsel properly advised him before entering his plea and that he was satisfied with the legal services and advice by legal counsel. Furthermore, Ashby's plea bargain added only a concurrent sentence, so that Ashby would not serve any additional time. Although Ashby agreed to dismiss his appeal of a prior conviction, the State dropped four pending criminal charges against Ashby pursuant to the plea bargain. Ashby's attorney signed an affidavit stating that Ashby knew the legal consequences of his plea and that Ashby agreed that the plea was his best course of action. Therefore, presuming that his attorney was competent, and in light of the facts and record of this case, we cannot conclude that Ashby showed that but for Shelton's failure to state the mandatory minimum sentence, Ashby would have proceeded to trial.