COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/29/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
ALFRED BANKS, APPELLANT (Pro se).
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
¶1. Alfred Banks appeals the Claiborne County Circuit Court's judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). On appeal, Banks raises the following issues: (1) whether his guilty plea was involuntary; (2) whether he was denied due process of law; and (3) whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.
¶2. A grand jury indicted Banks, Michael Shorter, and Keenan Turner for armed robbery, aggravated assault, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. On May 31, 2011, Banks pled guilty to aggravated assault, and the circuit court dismissed the other two charges against him. The circuit court sentenced Banks to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and credited Banks for his time already served in custody for the indictment's charges.
¶3. On July 16, 2013, Banks filed his PCR petition. The circuit court judge found that, at the time he entered his guilty plea, Banks " was fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him and all the facts and circumstances surrounding said charges, and having been placed under oath, [Banks] did voluntarily and intelligently enter a plea of guilty to [a]ggravated [a]ssault . . . ." The circuit court judge therefore denied Banks's PCR petition, finding that it plainly appeared from the face of the petition and from the prior proceedings that Banks's arguments lacked merit. Aggrieved by the circuit court's denial of his PCR petition, Banks appeals to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4. " When reviewing a circuit court's denial or dismissal of a PCR [petition], we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are 'clearly erroneous'; however, we review the circuit court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Boyd v. State, 65 ...