OF JUDGMENT: 09/29/2015
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL HADEN LAWYER.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY L. GORE.
GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, JJ.
Terrance Baker appeals the Circuit Court of DeSoto
County's judgment dismissing his motion for
post-conviction relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.
OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2011, Baker was indicted for one count of sale of
hydrocodone and one count of sale of marijuana, as a second
offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-147
(Rev. 2013). The indictment was amended in August 2012 to
charge Baker as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code
Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015). In September
2012, Baker pleaded guilty to the sale of hydrocodone as a
second offender. The trial court sentenced Baker to serve
fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections, followed by ten years of post-release
In September 2015, Baker timely filed a PCR motion, claiming
his plea was involuntary and he was denied effective
assistance of counsel. Regarding his guilty plea, Baker
claimed he was not advised of possible defenses, the elements
of the crime, or the consequences of the plea. Moreover, he
argued he was coerced into pleading guilty and agreeing to a
disproportionate sentence, thereby making his plea
involuntary. He asserted that he was not told he would be
sentenced as if a handgun were present, even though there was
no evidence of a handgun. Baker argued that his counsel failed
to: conduct a meaningful investigation of his case, ascertain
whether he was competent to enter a plea or assist in his own
defense, and properly advise him of his rights.
The trial court found Baker's arguments without merit and
dismissed his PCR motion in a five-page order. The court
found no need for an evidentiary hearing because Baker did
not provide any affidavits or other evidence in support of
his allegations. Baker timely appealed.
When reviewing the trial court's dismissal of a PCR
motion, this Court applies the clearly-erroneous standard of
review. Issues of law are reviewed de novo. Jones v.