As this Court has stated numerous times, “[s]tatements made in open court under oath ‘carry a strong presumption of veracity.’ ” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 955 So.2d 962, 965 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) ). To rebut this presumption, she must offer more than her own bare assertions that her trial counsel was ineffective.
As this Court has stated numerous times, "[s]tatements made in open court under oath 'carry a strong presumption of veracity.'" Cane v. State, 109 So. 3d 568, 571 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 955 So. 2d 962, 965 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)). To rebut this presumption, she must offer more than her own bare assertions that her trial counsel was ineffective.
"Statements made in open court under oath carry a strong presumption of veracity." Chandler v. State , 196 So. 3d 1067, 1072 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Cane v. State , 109 So. 3d 568, 571 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) ). Further, we find no indication in the record that Wallace raised any issue regarding his attorney's representation at the plea hearing.
One count of sexual battery was retired to the files.¶ 4. On August 11, 2011, Cane, acting pro se, filed his first petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging that the State had violated his rights under the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Cane v. State , 109 So.3d 568, 570 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). Specifically, Cane argued: (1) his guilty plea was not entered intelligently and voluntarily; (2) the facts were insufficient to convict him of sexual battery and child exploitation; (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel; and (4) he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
“Statements made in open court under oath carry a strong presumption of veracity.” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) ; see also id. at 572 (¶ 12) (holding that a defendant's “in-court statements that he was satisfied with his attorney's performance, coupled with his failure to provide any affidavit to support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, cause[d][his] claim to fail”). Likewise, Chandler's ineffective-assistance claim fails.
“Statements made in open court under oath carry a strong presumption of veracity.” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012); see also Carson, 161 So.3d at 156 (¶ 6).¶ 32. Burns also asserts that his counsel failed to object to the defective indictment and to investigate whether Burns possessed competency to the enter his guilty plea.
“[S]tatements made in open court under oath ‘carry a strong presumption of veracity.’ ” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571–72 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 955 So.2d 962, 965 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)). Additionally, paragraph 26 of Thomas's signed plea petition reads, in part: “I believe that my attorney has done all that he/she could do to counsel and assist me. I AM SATISFIED WITH THE ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE THAT MY ATTORNEY HAS GIVEN ME.”
Instead, these post-conviction challenges were made after Webster voluntarily entered guilty pleas. And a “valid guilty plea acts as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects, such as ‘those rights secured by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.’ ” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 ( ¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012); see also Montalto v. State, 119 So.3d 1087, 1096 ( ¶ 20) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (noting that a valid guilty plea waives claims involving violations of Miranda rights). Because Webster entered guilty pleas and does not challenge the validity of those pleas, this issue is waived.III. MDOC's Classification as Violent Offender
As this Court has stated numerous times, “[s]tatements made in open court under oath ‘carry a strong presumption of veracity.’ ” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 955 So.2d 962, 965 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2007)). The trial court instructed O'Neal that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to an appeal, and he stated in open court that he understood.
As this Court has stated numerous times, “[s]tatements made in open court under oath ‘carry a strong presumption of veracity.’ ” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 571 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Nichols v. State, 955 So.2d 962, 965 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) ). The trial court instructed O'Neal that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to an appeal, and he stated in open court that he understood.