IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2022-CA-00985-COA
JEEL MAHESHBHAI PATEL APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/26/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. BRADLEY MILLS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: NATHAN HENRY ELMORE KAI-CHUNG TSAO ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/26/2023 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Pursuant to a pretrial intervention agreement (the Agreement), Jeel Patel admitted that
he conspired to transfer less than thirty grams of marijuana, and he agreed to satisfy certain
terms and conditions of the Agreement for a period of one year. In exchange, the circuit
court withheld adjudication of Patel’s case, and after Patel had satisfied the terms of the
Agreement, the court dismissed the charge and later expunged all records of the case. Eight
years later, Patel learned that notwithstanding the dismissal and expungement, his admission
of guilt in the Agreement rendered him ineligible for lawful permanent residence status under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Patel then filed a motion in the circuit court to “withdraw and vacate” his prior admission of guilt in the Agreement. The circuit court
denied the motion, holding that it had “no jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief sought”
given that the charges against Patel had been dismissed, the case closed, and the record
expunged. Patel appealed. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. In 2012, Jeel Patel, two other men, A.A. and B.B.,1 and a juvenile male held a
“bachelor party” in a hotel room in Pearl. A.A. responded to an advertisement for escort
services posted on the website “backpage.com.” After several text messages and phone calls,
A.A. agreed to pay $150 in cash and an unspecified amount of marijuana in exchange for lap
dances and oral sex. Unbeknownst to the men, the Pearl Police Department had posted the
ad as part of an undercover operation. When a female undercover officer arrived at the hotel
room, A.A. gave her $120 in cash, and B.B. gave her about four grams of marijuana.
Officers then arrested all three men and the juvenile.
¶3. Patel was charged with conspiracy to transfer less than thirty grams of marijuana, but
he avoided conviction by entering into the Agreement with the district attorney. Patel signed
the Agreement with the advice of counsel. Pursuant to the Agreement, Patel agreed to
comply with certain terms and conditions—e.g., commit no crimes, consume no alcohol or
drugs, avoid convicted felons, maintain employment, and pay court costs and program
fees—for a period of one year. He also “admit[ted]” that he “willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, knowingly and intentionally conspire[d] to sell or transfer [less than thirty grams
1 We use fictitious initials for the other men involved because we do not know whether either or both of them also had their records expunged.
2 of] marijuana[.]” Patel satisfied the terms of the Agreement, the charge against him was
dismissed in 2014, and all records of the case were later expunged. See generally Miss. Code
Ann. §§ 99-15-105, -107, -109, -115, -117, -123 (Rev. 2020).
¶4. Several years later, Patel applied for lawful permanent residency status under the
INA.2 In December 2021, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied
Patel’s application pursuant to section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), which provides that an alien who has admitted to having committed
a violation of any law related to a controlled substance “is inadmissible.”
¶5. Patel then filed a motion in the circuit court to “withdraw and vacate” his prior
admission of guilt in the Agreement. Citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), Patel
argued that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the
immigration consequences of his admission and the Agreement. The circuit court denied the
motion, holding that it had “no jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief sought” because
the charges against Patel had been dismissed, the case closed, and the record expunged. Patel
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then appealed.
ANALYSIS
¶6. In two prior cases, this Court has addressed similar motions seeking to set aside guilty
pleas that resulted in non-adjudicated probation and a dismissal of charges. Alsahquni v.
State, 150 So. 3d 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014); Borou v. State, 159 So. 3d 620 (Miss. Ct. App.
2015). In Alsahquni, a convenience store owner (Alsahquni) pled guilty to selling precursors
2 Patel’s immigration status at the time of his arrest and in the intervening years is not clear from the record in this case.
3 (pseudoephedrine), but the court withheld acceptance of the plea and placed Alsahquni on
non-adjudicated probation. Alsahquni, 150 So. 3d at 161 (¶2). “Despite the dismissal of the
charges, Alsahquni’s guilty plea negatively affected his immigration status; he was taken into
federal custody for potential deportation.” Id. Alsahquni then filed a motion for post-
conviction relief (PCR) in the circuit court, arguing that he had received ineffective
assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary. Id. at (¶3). The circuit court
dismissed Alsahquni’s PCR motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the charges
against him had been dismissed. Id. at (¶4).
¶7. On appeal, this Court affirmed. Id. at 164 (¶10). We explained,
The purpose of the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act is to “streamline and clarify the rules and statutes pertaining to post-conviction collateral relief law and procedures, to resolve any conflicts therein and to provide the courts of this state with an exclusive and uniform procedure for the collateral review of convictions and sentences.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (Rev. 2007) (emphasis added). Further, Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5 states that “[a]ny person sentenced by a court of record of the State of Mississippi, including a person currently incarcerated, civilly committed, on parole or probation or subject to sex offender registration . . . may file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence[.]”
Alsahquni, 150 So. 3d at 162 (¶8). We held that “Alsahquni lacked standing to file a PCR
motion” because “[h]e was neither convicted nor sentenced”; rather, all charges against him
had been dismissed. Id. at 163 (¶10).
¶8. The material facts and procedural history of Borou were substantially similar. Borou,
159 So. 3d at 621 (¶¶2-4). As in Alsahquni, the circuit court withheld acceptance of Borou’s
guilty plea and then dismissed all the charges against him after he completed his non-
adjudicated probation. Id. at (¶3). Borou later filed a PCR motion to set aside his guilty plea
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2022-CA-00985-COA
JEEL MAHESHBHAI PATEL APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/26/2022 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. BRADLEY MILLS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: NATHAN HENRY ELMORE KAI-CHUNG TSAO ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/26/2023 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Pursuant to a pretrial intervention agreement (the Agreement), Jeel Patel admitted that
he conspired to transfer less than thirty grams of marijuana, and he agreed to satisfy certain
terms and conditions of the Agreement for a period of one year. In exchange, the circuit
court withheld adjudication of Patel’s case, and after Patel had satisfied the terms of the
Agreement, the court dismissed the charge and later expunged all records of the case. Eight
years later, Patel learned that notwithstanding the dismissal and expungement, his admission
of guilt in the Agreement rendered him ineligible for lawful permanent residence status under
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Patel then filed a motion in the circuit court to “withdraw and vacate” his prior admission of guilt in the Agreement. The circuit court
denied the motion, holding that it had “no jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief sought”
given that the charges against Patel had been dismissed, the case closed, and the record
expunged. Patel appealed. We find no error and affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. In 2012, Jeel Patel, two other men, A.A. and B.B.,1 and a juvenile male held a
“bachelor party” in a hotel room in Pearl. A.A. responded to an advertisement for escort
services posted on the website “backpage.com.” After several text messages and phone calls,
A.A. agreed to pay $150 in cash and an unspecified amount of marijuana in exchange for lap
dances and oral sex. Unbeknownst to the men, the Pearl Police Department had posted the
ad as part of an undercover operation. When a female undercover officer arrived at the hotel
room, A.A. gave her $120 in cash, and B.B. gave her about four grams of marijuana.
Officers then arrested all three men and the juvenile.
¶3. Patel was charged with conspiracy to transfer less than thirty grams of marijuana, but
he avoided conviction by entering into the Agreement with the district attorney. Patel signed
the Agreement with the advice of counsel. Pursuant to the Agreement, Patel agreed to
comply with certain terms and conditions—e.g., commit no crimes, consume no alcohol or
drugs, avoid convicted felons, maintain employment, and pay court costs and program
fees—for a period of one year. He also “admit[ted]” that he “willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, knowingly and intentionally conspire[d] to sell or transfer [less than thirty grams
1 We use fictitious initials for the other men involved because we do not know whether either or both of them also had their records expunged.
2 of] marijuana[.]” Patel satisfied the terms of the Agreement, the charge against him was
dismissed in 2014, and all records of the case were later expunged. See generally Miss. Code
Ann. §§ 99-15-105, -107, -109, -115, -117, -123 (Rev. 2020).
¶4. Several years later, Patel applied for lawful permanent residency status under the
INA.2 In December 2021, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied
Patel’s application pursuant to section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), which provides that an alien who has admitted to having committed
a violation of any law related to a controlled substance “is inadmissible.”
¶5. Patel then filed a motion in the circuit court to “withdraw and vacate” his prior
admission of guilt in the Agreement. Citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), Patel
argued that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the
immigration consequences of his admission and the Agreement. The circuit court denied the
motion, holding that it had “no jurisdiction or authority to grant the relief sought” because
the charges against Patel had been dismissed, the case closed, and the record expunged. Patel
filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and then appealed.
ANALYSIS
¶6. In two prior cases, this Court has addressed similar motions seeking to set aside guilty
pleas that resulted in non-adjudicated probation and a dismissal of charges. Alsahquni v.
State, 150 So. 3d 159 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014); Borou v. State, 159 So. 3d 620 (Miss. Ct. App.
2015). In Alsahquni, a convenience store owner (Alsahquni) pled guilty to selling precursors
2 Patel’s immigration status at the time of his arrest and in the intervening years is not clear from the record in this case.
3 (pseudoephedrine), but the court withheld acceptance of the plea and placed Alsahquni on
non-adjudicated probation. Alsahquni, 150 So. 3d at 161 (¶2). “Despite the dismissal of the
charges, Alsahquni’s guilty plea negatively affected his immigration status; he was taken into
federal custody for potential deportation.” Id. Alsahquni then filed a motion for post-
conviction relief (PCR) in the circuit court, arguing that he had received ineffective
assistance of counsel and that his plea was involuntary. Id. at (¶3). The circuit court
dismissed Alsahquni’s PCR motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the charges
against him had been dismissed. Id. at (¶4).
¶7. On appeal, this Court affirmed. Id. at 164 (¶10). We explained,
The purpose of the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act is to “streamline and clarify the rules and statutes pertaining to post-conviction collateral relief law and procedures, to resolve any conflicts therein and to provide the courts of this state with an exclusive and uniform procedure for the collateral review of convictions and sentences.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (Rev. 2007) (emphasis added). Further, Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5 states that “[a]ny person sentenced by a court of record of the State of Mississippi, including a person currently incarcerated, civilly committed, on parole or probation or subject to sex offender registration . . . may file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence[.]”
Alsahquni, 150 So. 3d at 162 (¶8). We held that “Alsahquni lacked standing to file a PCR
motion” because “[h]e was neither convicted nor sentenced”; rather, all charges against him
had been dismissed. Id. at 163 (¶10).
¶8. The material facts and procedural history of Borou were substantially similar. Borou,
159 So. 3d at 621 (¶¶2-4). As in Alsahquni, the circuit court withheld acceptance of Borou’s
guilty plea and then dismissed all the charges against him after he completed his non-
adjudicated probation. Id. at (¶3). Borou later filed a PCR motion to set aside his guilty plea
4 on the ground that his attorney had failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of
the plea. Id. The circuit court denied Borou’s motion, and this Court affirmed, holding that
“Borou lacked standing to file a PCR motion” because “[h]e was neither convicted nor
sentenced”; rather, all charges against him were dismissed. Id. at 623 (¶9).
¶9. In an effort to avoid the holdings of Alsahquni and Borou, Patel asserts that “neither
of those cases present the unusual facts of this case” and that “neither of those cases involved
a claim of actual innocence.” However, Patel does not describe what he means by the
“unusual facts of this case” or how any factual distinctions make any legal difference.
Moreover, as for his claim of “actual innocence,” Patel’s affidavit never actually claims that
he is innocent. Rather, Patel’s affidavit only states that he was not advised of the
immigration consequences of his admission or the Agreement. Patel’s claim of actual
innocence rests entirely on the fact that the reports of the Pearl Police Department indicate
that Patel did not communicate directly with the undercover officer or personally give her the
drugs. However, Patel clearly could have been convicted of conspiring to transfer marijuana
in exchange for lap dances and oral sex even if he did not directly communicate with the
undercover officer or personally give her the drugs.
¶10. In any event, the dispositive issue in this case is controlled by our decisions in
Alsahquni and Borou. Patel “lack[s] standing to file a PCR motion” because “[h]e was
neither convicted nor sentenced”; rather, all charges against him were dismissed, his case was
closed, and the record was expunged. Alsahquni, 150 So. 3d at 163 (¶10); Borou, 159 So.
3d at 623 (¶9); see also Rodriguez v. State, 437 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tenn. 2014) (holding that
5 a similar claim was not cognizable under Tennessee’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act
because a pretrial diversion agreement had resulted in the dismissal of all charges and an
expunction, not a “conviction”). The fact that federal immigration authorities may attach
certain consequences to Patel’s Agreement does not transform the Agreement into a
conviction or sentence for purposes of Mississippi law. Moreover, Patel identifies no other
procedural mechanism that would allow him to challenge an admission that did not result in
a conviction years after all the charges against him had been dismissed. Therefore, the circuit
court properly dismissed Patel’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.
¶11. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ., CONCUR. EMFINGER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.