Love v. State

391 So.3d 1170

Soweto Ronnell LOVE a/k/a Soweto Love

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2021-CT-01101-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

08/15/2024

TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. GERALD W. CHATHAM, SR., JUDGE

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SOWETO RONNELL LOVE (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAUREN GABRIELLE CANTRELL

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. The Tate County Circuit Court accepted Soweto Ronnell Love’s Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty to one count of attempting to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by forged prescription and to one count of acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance by forged prescription. The circuit court’s sentence provided that Love pled guilty to the two counts "as a [Mississippi Code Section] 99-19-81 Habitual Offender as charged in the Indictment …. " Love was consequently sentenced as a habitual offender under Section 99-19-81 to five years on each count on October 6, 2020, with the sentences to run consecutively.

¶2. The following year, Love filed a pro se Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief (PCR) and challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea. The circuit court dismissed Love’s PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing, however, finding that Love’s plea was voluntary based on the record of his guilty plea.

¶3. On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals (five-to-one-to-four) affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Love’s PCR motion.¹ Love v. State, No. 2021-CP-01101-COA, 391 So.3d 1197, 1205–06 (Miss. Ct. App. July 18, 2023). And on November 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied Love’s pro se motion for rehearing. Love then filed a timely pro se petition for writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.

¶4. Holding that the circuit court erred by dismissing Love’s PCR motion on his voluntariness claim and that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the dismissal, we reverse both the circuit court’s dismissal of Love’s PCR motion and the Court of Appeals’ decision, and we remand this case to the circuit court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Love voluntarily pled guilty as a habitual offender.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶5. A six-count² indictment was entered jointly against Love and Porcha Latoya Knox on January 24, 2018. Based on Love’s seven prior felony convictions,³ the State later moved to amend the indictment to charge him "as a[ ] habitual offender and as a recidivist according to [Mississippi Code] Section[s] 99-19-81 and … 41-29-147." The circuit court then entered an order granting the State’s motion on September 4, 2018.

¶6. On August 29, 2019, Love, in the presence of counsel, signed a Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty to two of the original six counts: Count 2 (attempting to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance by forged prescription) and Count 3 (acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance by forged prescription).⁴ See Love, 391 So.3d at 1199–200. In the petition, Love acknowledged with his signature:

3. I plead guilty to the charge(s) of Forged Prescription - 2 counts in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-144, as set forth in count[s] 2, 3 of the indictment in this cause number.

….

9. My lawyer has informed me as to the maximum and minimum punishment which the law provides for the offense charged in the indictment. The maximum punishment which the [c]ourt may impose for this crime that I am charged with is 5 years imprisonment [on each count] and $1,000.00 fine [on each count]. The minimum punishment is 1 years imprisonment [on each count] and/or $0 fine [on each count]

….

….

11. I do understand that no one can assure me of parole or early release. Certain crimes make a Defendant ineligible for parole. These include, but are not limited to, sex crimes, armed robbery and defendants who are sentenced as habitual offenders. I have discussed with my attorney whether the crime for which I am charged fits into that category. I understand that this process is governed by the Legislature and the Mississippi Department of Corrections and not by this [c]ourt.

….

17. I have not previously been convicted of any felony, except Possession with Intent [and] Possession of a Controlled Substance by Fraud.

….

19. I understand that if [I] have now been convicted of two (2) or more felonies upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and have been sentenced to separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or Federal prison institution, that if I am convicted of another felony, then I may be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed or such felony and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor will I be eligible for parole or probation or other earned or good time.

20. I understand that if [I] have now been convicted on two (2) or more felonies upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and have been sentenced and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or Federal prison institution and one of such felonies was a crime of violence, that if I am convicted of another felony, then I may be sentenced to life imprisonment and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor will I be eligible for parole or probation or other earned or good time.

(Emphasis added.)

¶7. At the plea colloquy held on September 16, 2019, the circuit court and Love had the following exchange:

COURT: This petition tells me that … you’re offering to plead guilty to forged prescription, two counts, which is a felony; is that correct?

LOVE: Yes, sir.

….

COURT: It looks like the maximum penalty that you could suffer for the charges that you’re pleading to of forged prescription in Counts Two and Three is five years on each count and $1,000 on each count. The minimum punishment is one year on each count and zero fine on each count. Is that what you and [your counsel] have talked about?

LOVE: Yes, sir.

….

COURT: You need to understand that if you are sentenced to the Mississippi Department of Corrections for any term of years or days or months, whenever, you have no assurances of parole or early release. In other words, you may have to serve every day of whatever sentence I impose on you.

Now, my question to you is, Did anyone promise you that if you’d come up here today and plead guilty that you’d be able to go down there to the penitentiary and you’d get out early or you’d make parole, and you have relied on that in entering your plea here today?

LOVE: No, sir.

(Emphasis added.)

¶8. More than a year after the plea colloquy, the circuit court sentenced Love to five years on each count on October 6, 2020, with the sentences to run consecutively. It also ordered Love to pay, on each count, "a $1,000.00 fine, $200.00 to the District Attorney’s Office, $100.00 to the Mississippi Crime Victims Compensation Fund and all costs of Court." Importantly, the circuit court’s sentence claimed that Love had "pled guilty on September 16, 2019 … as a 99-19-81 Habitual offender as charged in the Indictment . … "

¶9. Love subsequently challenged his conviction by filing a pro se PCR motion in March 2021. In the motion, he argued that his guilty plea was involuntary, claiming that

at the time that the plea hearing had been scheduled to take place but just prior to any waiver of [his] fundamental rights [he] had been allowed to go to the rest room. It was when he would return that he would learn that the court had actually proceeded with allowing his rights to be waived already and had found the pleas of guilty to be voluntarily entered on the record.

In addition to this claim, Love also (1) alleged "[t]hat the trial court failed to establish any factual basis to the offenses that [he was] convicted of’; (2) alleged that he was not "informed of the maximum and minimum sentences of the offenses"; and (3) requested that "an evidentiary hearing be scheduled to further discuss the relevant matters and other circumstances pertinent to the introduction of his plea(s) of guilty." (Emphasis added.)

¶10. On August 26, 2021, the circuit court entered a nine-page order dismissing Love’s PCR motion. As in its sentence, the circuit court again claimed that Love had pled "as a Section 99-19-81 habitual offender." It also found that

the transcript reflects that Love was present before [the circuit court] throughout his plea colloquy, that the State established a factual basis for the charges against Love, that [the circuit court] ascertained that Love understood the charges against him, what the consequences of his guilty plea were, including the constitutional rights that Love would be waiving by entering his plea, the minimum and maximum sentencethat Love could receive for each charge that he was pleading guilty to, and that Love was informed that [the circuit court] would not be bound by any agreement that had been reached between the State and the Defense ….

Based on this finding, the circuit court held that Love had entered his plea voluntarily.

¶11. In response to the circuit court’s dismissal, Love appealed, raising four issues. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed: (1) whether a "factual basis existed for [Love’s] plea"; (2) whether Love’s plea was voluntary; (3) whether "the circuit court erred by not permitting [Love] to withdraw his plea"; and (4) whether Love "received ineffective assistance of counsel." Love, 391 So.3d at 1201–06. On the first issue, the Court of Appeals held "that a factual basis was established to support Love’s plea, and the circuit court did not err by dismissing Love’s PCR motion on this claim." Id. at 1202. On the second, the Court of Appeals held "that Love … failed to show that his guilty plea was involuntary" and "that the circuit court did not err by dismissing Love’s PCR motion on this claim." Id. at 1205-06. Judge Emfinger dissented on this issue, however, finding that "[n]either the petition to enter a plea of guilty nor the...