Carson v. State

The defendant failed to show that his trial counsel misrepresented his eligibility for parole and early release when defendant pled guilty to armed robbery, since the record show that counsel informed the defendant that armed robbery is one of the seven deadly sins and the offenses are non-parolable and non-reviewable.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury indicted Orlando Carson on three counts of armed robbery, seven counts of aggravated assault, two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and one count of kidnaping. While represented by counsel, Carson pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery. The court dismissed the one remaining armed robbery charge and the state nolle prossed the other charges. The court sentenced Carson according to his request —18 years in prison on each of the two armed robbery counts, with the sentences running concurrently. Carson later moved to withdraw the plea, claiming it was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court denied his motion. Carson appeals from that ruling. We affirm. 1. Carson contends he should have been permitted to withdraw the guilty plea because his attorney provided ineffective assistance in connection with the plea. Specifically, he complains that defense counsel affirmatively misrepresented his eligibility for early release. According to Carson, defense counsel told him before he entered the plea that he would be considered for parole due to prison overcrowding, when in fact the law does not allow parole for armed robbery convictions.1 Carson also claims that trial counsel incorrectly told him he could request a review of the sentence from the sentence review panel. The trial court did not err in denying Carson’s motion.

In the context of a guilty plea, the two-prong test for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel enunciated in Strickland v. Washington 2 requires that the defendant establish the reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.3 The court’s finding of effective assistance, as well as its findings on reasonableness and credibility, will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.4 Moreover, determination of witness credibility is within the trial court’s discretion.5

Carson v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report