Opinion ID: 1116568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: claim (4) ineffectiveness of counsel

Text: Brooks' fourth and final claim concerns the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. According to Brooks his attorney was constitutionally ineffective because counsel failed to object to the defective indictments and erroneously advised Brooks to plead guilty to the charges. We find no merit in this claim. See Reynolds v. State, 521 So.2d 914, 917 (Miss. 1988). Brooks failed to allege with the specificity and detail required that his counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Perkins v. State, supra, 487 So.2d at 793. Put another way, the petitioner's showing was not in proper form. The facts he alleged in his proposed motion and the brief submitted in support thereof were not supported by any affidavits other than his own. See Smith v. State, 490 So.2d 860 (Miss. 1986) (Defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on contention he was deprived of right to effective assistance of counsel, failed to meet the pleading requirements of § 99-39-9(1)(e), Miss.Code 1972 Ann. Brooks' complaint concerning his lawyer is without merit for this reason if for no other. Aside from all this, the indictments were not defective. Counsel, of course, cannot be faulted for failing to challenge the validity of valid indictments. Accordingly, Brooks has failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient much less that any deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Brooks has also failed to identify the deficient and erroneous advice of counsel that allegedly resulted in his pleas of guilty. Put another way, he has failed to demonstrate, or even suggest, that counsel's advice was not ... within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. Hill v. Lockhart, supra, 474 U.S. at 56, 106 S.Ct. at 369, 88 L.Ed.2d at 208 quoting from McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). In short, Brooks' ineffective assistance of counsel claim was properly dismissed without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing because it was manifestly without merit. Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his judicial discretion in summarily denying Brooks' motion to vacate his pleas of guilty.