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.

Gill v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

February 13, 2018

GREGORY L. GILL A/K/A GREGORY GILL APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/21/2016

         HANCOCK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY L. GILL (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ.

          CARLTON, J.

         FOR THE COURT:

         ¶1. Gregory Gill pleaded guilty to two counts of touching a child for a lustful purpose in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-23(1) (Supp. 2017). The trial court sentenced Gill to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively, with fifteen years suspended and five years of postrelease supervision.

         ¶2. Gill filed a motion for postconviction relief (PCR), which the trial court denied. Gill now appeals, asserting the following assignments of error: (1) his right against double jeopardy was violated; (2) the State failed to amend his indictment; (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Gill's prior convictions; (4) his counsel was ineffective; and (5) his right to a speedy trial was violated. Finding no error, we affirm the Hancock County Circuit Court's denial of Gill's PCR motion.[1]

         FACTS

         ¶3. On February 3, 2014, Gill pleaded guilty to two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes.[2] The trial court sentenced Gill to fifteen years in the custody of the MDOC for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively, with fifteen years suspended and five years of postrelease supervision.

         ¶4. On July 29, 2016, Gill filed a petition to vacate his conviction and sentence, which the trial court treated as a PCR motion. In his PCR motion, Gill argued that: (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) his counsel was ineffective; and (3) his right against double jeopardy was violated.

         ¶5. On September 21, 2016, the trial court entered an order denying Gill's PCR motion. Regarding Gill's speedy-trial claim, the trial court explained that a valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of the right to a speedy trial. The trial court found that since Gill entered a guilty plea and failed to show that his plea was not valid, his claim lacked merit.

         ¶6. The trial court also found that Gill's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit because Gill "failed to show that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for his counsel's alleged errors, he would not have pled guilty." The trial court explained that Gill failed to present evidence to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Citing Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-35-101 (Rev. 2015), the trial court also provided that since Gill pleaded guilty to the charges against him, he had no right to directly appeal his sentence and no right to counsel for a direct appeal.

         ¶7. Finally, the trial court held that Gill was not subjected to double jeopardy because Gill "pled guilty to two (2) separate acts of touching of a child for a lustful purpose, both of which took place on or between January 1, 2004[, ] and December 31, 2007."

         ¶8. Gill filed his notice of appeal on November 3, 2016.[3]

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶9. "When reviewing a trial court's denial . . . of a motion for PCR, we will only disturb the trial court's factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review. . . legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Chapman v. ...


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.