Cane v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. Thomas v. State

    NO. 2013-CA-00379-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2012)

    "[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.

  2. Webster v. State

    NO. 2013-CP-00922-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2013)

    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 ¶12.

  3. Carson v. State

    NO. 2013-CP-01586-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2013)

    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.

  4. Ferguson v. State

    NO. 2012-CA-01121-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2013)

    ¶4. "When reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a PCR motion, this Court will not disturb the circuit court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous." Cane v. State, 109 So. 3d 568, 570 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).

  5. Ferguson v. State

    131 So. 3d 1235 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 4. “When reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a PCR motion, this Court will not disturb the circuit court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Cane v. State, 109 So.3d 568, 570 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (¶ 6) (Miss.1999)). “Questions of law receive a de novo analysis.”

  6. O'Neal v. State

    156 So. 3d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)

    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.

  7. O'Neal v. State

    156 So. 3d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)

    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.

  8. Carson v. State

    161 So. 3d 153 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 21 times

    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.

  9. Webster v. State

    152 So. 3d 1200 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    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

  10. Thomas v. State

    159 So. 3d 1212 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 29 times

    “[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.”