Opinion ID: 1660908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Spry's plea was involuntary due to threats?

Text: ¶ 5. Spry further contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because he was threatened by one of the assault victim's sons. At the hearing, Spry specifically acknowledged that he had not been threatened: BY THE COURT: Do you understand that at this time I am attempting to determine if the pleas of guilty which you are offering through your attorney are being made by you knowingly, freely, understandingly and voluntarily on your part? SPRY: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: Are your pleas of guilty free and voluntary on your part, without any threats or promises having been made to you? SPRY: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering these pleas of guilty that you are giving up a great number of legal rights that you have as a defendant in a criminal proceeding? SPRY: Yes, sir. ¶ 6. This Court has set forth standards regarding guilty pleas. A guilty plea is not binding on a criminal defendant unless it is entered voluntarily and intelligently. Myers v. State, 583 So.2d 174, 177 (Miss.1991). In determining whether a plea is voluntary, we look to see if the defendant knows what the elements are of the charge against him including an understanding of the charge and its relation to him, what effect the plea will have, and what the possible sentence might be because of his plea. Wilson v. State, 577 So.2d 394, 397 (Miss.1991). Specifically, the defendant must be told that a guilty plea involves a waiver of the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the right to protection against self-incrimination. Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Miss.1992) (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969)). ¶ 7. In examining the transcript from the plea hearing, it is apparent that Spry knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty. The trial court advised Spry of his rights, including his right to a public trial by jury, the right to cross-examine any witnesses called to testify against him, his right to testify only if he personally desired to do so, and the right to refuse to testify. The court asked Spry whether he understood these rights, and Spry responded that he did. Spry answered in the affirmative when asked if he understood that a guilty plea waived all of these rights. Spry also acknowledged knowing the maximum sentences for his crimes as well as the recommended sentence which he, in fact, received from the trial court. Further, Spry asserted that he was satisfied with the legal service and advice of his attorney. After the State disclosed all the relevant evidence and facts proving Spry's guilt, Spry did not indicate any differences with the State's account of what had occurred. After Spry pled guilty, the court found that the plea was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly. ¶ 8. Not only does the plea colloquy directly refute Spry's arguments, but Spry also fails to offer this Court with any evidence to support his contentions. Therefore, this Court concludes that Spry's guilty plea was valid.