Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramirez v. State

March 26, 1998

RAMIREZ
v.
STATE



Before Prather, C.j., Smith And Waller, JJ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Waller, Justice

BALTAZAR RAMIREZ a/k/a MORFIN R. BALTAZAR a/k/a BALTAZAR MORFIN RAMIREZ a/k/a MORFIN RAMIREZ BALTAZAR a/k/a BALTAZAR MURPHY RAMIREZ v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-A

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/19/96

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. R. I. PRICHARD, III

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF

DISPOSITION AFFIRMED - 3/26/98

Baltazar Ramirez ("Ramirez") originally pled guilty to possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139(c)(2)(D) (1994). and was sentenced serve seventeen years. Ramirez filed a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§99-39-1 et seq., contending that his guilty pica was involuntary, that he was unable to understand the proceeding, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. This motion was dismissed without an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-11(2) (1994). Ramirez now appeals to this Court contending that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and raising the following contentions:

I. THE CIRCUIT COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S POST- CONVICTION PETITION WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

II. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS ATTORNEY, DURING THE PLEA HEARING, COERCED HIM INTO ADMITTING TO A CRIME THAT HE DENIED DURING THE COURT'S BOYKINIZATION.

III. THE GUILTY PLEA WAS INVOLUNTARY, UNINTELLIGENTLY AND UNKNOWINGLY MADE DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. COUNSEL KNEW THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH AND COULD NOT THEREFORE UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PLEA TO THE CHARGE.

IV. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS COUNSEL MISINTERPRETED THE TRUTH IN SENTENCING BILL (85% STATUTE). Finding merit in none of these arguments we affirm the lower court. A. DISCUSSION

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW.

This Court has explained the procedural posture of an appeal from summary dismissal of a motion for post conviction relief as follows: [R]review of claims brought via formal post-conviction petition proceeds in a structural order whereby "[o]ur procedural posture is analogous to that when a defendant in a civil action moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Functionally, Section 99-39-9 is substituted for the pleadings requirements of Rule 8(a) and (e), Miss.R.Civ.P."

Myers v. State, 583 So. 2d 174, 175-6 (Miss. 1991)(internal citations omitted)(quoting Billioty v. State 515 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.