Opinion ID: 1128574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: as to the voluntariness of his plea ashby raised two points.

Text: 1) He was not advised of the minimum sentence he could receive and 2) that he was unaware and ignorant of the principles of law and unable to comprehend the legal process. Ashby was not informed of the minimum sentence for the charge against him. In a line of cases from this Court beginning with Vittitoe v. State, 556 So.2d 1062, 1063-65 (Miss. 1990), we have vacated sentences where the minimum penalty was not explained at the guilty plea hearing. However, automatic invalidation of a guilty plea is no longer the rule in Mississippi. Gibson v. State, 641 So.2d 1163, 1166 (Miss. 1994); Smith v. State, 636 So.2d 1220, 1226 (Miss. 1994); Gaskin v. State, 618 So.2d 103, 108 (Miss. 1993). Smith is similar to this case. Smith was not advised of the mandatory minimum sentence for burglary when entering a plea with a recommended sentence by the State. In concluding that the failure to tell Smith of the mandatory minimum sentence was harmless error, we stated: There was no misrepresentation or mis-statement as to a mandatory minimum sentence made to Smith by anyone, and he did not expect to receive the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, he knew and understood from the onset that the State would recommend a mandatory sentence of eight years if he plead guilty. Smith, 636 So.2d at 1227. We held that the reliance and expectation elements were missing in Smith and we find that to be true here as well. Ashby knew that the State would recommend a twenty-five year sentence that would run concurrently with his prior conviction. Ashby also knew that the State agreed to drop four other charges on which he faced punishment. We cannot under these circumstances find that Ashby was misled as to his situation or the minimum sentence that he could receive, and therefore we must conclude that he voluntarily entered his plea of guilt. Ashby argues that he did not understand the legal proceedings and, therefore, was unable to knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. The law requires that a defendant possess understanding of law as well as the facts. Judge Russell questioned Ashby and noted his prior connections with the court, and Ashby's attorney filed an affidavit stating that Ashby fully understood the proceedings and agreed with the plea bargain. Ashby's formal education ended with the eleventh grade, but this does not create the presumption that Ashby did not understand his legal proceedings and their consequences. The record reveals that Ashby has been before the court before, and is no stranger to the process. Judge Russell specifically questioned Ashby as to his knowledge of the plea, witnessed Ashby's demeanor, and made sure Ashby was content with his legal services. Under these circumstances we cannot conclude that Ashby lacked understanding of the legal proceedings and the consequences of his guilty plea.