Russell v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Russell v. State

    73 So. 3d 542 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 10 times

    The circuit court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial on September 21, 2010. Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 438 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). Between the submission of the first motion and our September 2010 decision, Russell filed a second PCR motion on May 10, 2010. The circuit court dismissed this motion with prejudice on May 12, 2010, finding it successive.

  2. Russell v. State

    2010 CP 870 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    The circuit court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial on September 21, 2010. Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431, 438 (¶ 24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Between the submission of the first motion and our September 2010 decision, Russell filed a second PCR motion on May 10, 2010.

  3. Belmer v. State

    356 So. 3d 599 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)

    ¶12. "The standard of competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining competency to stand trial." Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 435 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). "[T]he defendant bears the burden to prove `by substantial evidence that he or she is mentally incompetent to stand trial.'"

  4. Harris v. State

    365 So. 3d 301 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "The standard of competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining competency to stand trial." Russell v. State , 44 So. 3d 431, 435 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). The defendant bears the burden "to show by substantial evidence that his competency to stand trial is in question."

  5. Lopez v. State

    222 So. 3d 335 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)

    To begin, we reaffirm that "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory." Russell v. State , 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Cole v. State , 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss. 1995) ). "The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every [motion] it entertains."

  6. Green v. State

    195 So. 3d 246 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 6. “We will not disturb the trial court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief unless the trial court's factual findings are found to be clearly erroneous.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 433 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). “The applicable standard of review where questions of law are raised is de novo.”

  7. Smith v. State

    192 So. 3d 1099 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    On appeal, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on her PCR motion before denying the motion. It is well settled that “[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (citing Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995) ). “The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every [motion] it entertains.”

  8. Brasso v. State

    195 So. 3d 856 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    ¶ 33. A defendant is competent to enter a guilty plea as long as he has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 435 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Magee v. State, 914 So.2d 729, 733 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) ). The trial judge in this case was not presented with any information that called into question Brasso's understanding of the charges against him or his ability to consult with his lawyer.

  9. Meisner v. State

    203 So. 3d 766 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times
    In Meisner, the defendant "was rendered a habitual offender due to his past crimes... [and accordingly] should have been sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment...."

    It is well settled that "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory." Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (citing Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995) ). "The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every petition it entertains."

  10. Vaughn v. State

    NO. 2011-CP-00176-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2012)   Cited 7 times

    We will not overturn a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion unless its factual findings are clearly erroneous. Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431, 434 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). When analyzing a PCR motion, the circuit court must "review the 'original motion, together with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack' to determine whether the defendant has proven the merit of the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence."