307 So.3d 497
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2005 Albert McDonald pled guilty to multiple offenses after a multi-victim shooting: two counts of capital murder, three counts of aggravated assault, three counts of burglary, and one count of kidnapping.
- McDonald filed a PCR motion in 2015 raising double jeopardy, defective indictments, and ineffective assistance; the circuit court dismissed it as time-barred and this Court affirmed on appeal.
- In 2018 McDonald filed four additional PCR motions challenging the same convictions; the circuit court dismissed them under the UPCCRA three-year statute of limitations and the successive-motions bar.
- McDonald asserted: defective or constructively amended indictments; no factual basis for plea; involuntary guilty plea and confession; double jeopardy; and ineffective assistance/conflict of counsel.
- The court evaluated statutory time bars and the recognized "fundamental-rights" and "extraordinary/exceptional circumstances" exceptions, but found no applicable exception for most claims and rejected the two potentially excepted claims on the merits.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denials of all five consolidated PCR appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UPCCRA statute of limitations (three-year rule) | McDonald contends his claims should be heard despite filing nearly 13 years after conviction | State: claims are time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. §99-39-5(2) | Held: Claims are time-barred; PCRs untimely |
| Successive-motions bar | McDonald argues his new motions should proceed | State: prior final denial bars successive motions under §99-39-23(6) | Held: Successive-motion bar applies; prior PCR denial precludes new motions |
| Double jeopardy | McDonald contends he was charged/put in jeopardy twice for same conduct (assault/kidnap across indictments) | State: charges in one indictment were retired; no double punishment or repeated jeopardy | Held: No double jeopardy; two outstanding indictments alone do not create double jeopardy |
| Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest | McDonald alleges a public defender had a conflict (signed unrelated warrant) and counsel was ineffective | State: McDonald waived any conflict at plea; no evidence of deficient performance or prejudice; no extraordinary circumstances warranting exception | Held: Claim fails; waiver at plea and no proof of prejudice or exceptional circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (recognizing certain "fundamental rights" exceptions to UPCCRA time and successive-writ bars)
- Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) (holding ineffective-assistance claims may be excepted from time bars only in extraordinary circumstances)
- McDonald v. State, 204 So. 3d 780 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (prior appeal affirming denial of McDonald’s earlier PCR)
- Ashwell v. State, 226 So. 3d 69 (Miss. 2017) (invalidating statute that required separate PCRs for separate judgments)
- Shinn v. State, 174 So. 3d 961 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (two outstanding indictments do not, by themselves, establish double jeopardy)