"[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 ¶12.
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. "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).
¶ 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.”
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.
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.
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
“[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.”