Beal v. State
118 So. 3d 162
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Beal was convicted of statutory rape in Madison County Circuit Court and sentenced to 23 years in the MDOC.
- The dismissal of Beal’s first post-conviction relief motion was affirmed by this Court last year.
- Beal filed a second motion for post-conviction relief asserting his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered and that pre-indictment delay violated due process.
- The circuit court dismissed Beal’s second motion as barred by the successive-writ rule under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviews the dismissal for abuse of discretion and applies the procedural-bar framework, allowing exceptions for certain fundamental-rights claims if a basis for truth exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowingly intelligent? | Beal argues the court failed to inform him his plea waived self-incrimination. | Beal’s plea colloquy showed awareness of rights and waiver; claim is contradicted by record. | Plea was knowingly and intelligently entered; barred by successive-writ rule. |
| Did pre-indictment delay violate due process? | Delay prejudiced defense because DNA could prove guilt and delay was purposeful. | Delay was not an intentional device to gain tactical advantage; delay for probable cause is permissible. | No due-process violation proved; no basis to overcome procedural bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooker v. State, 516 So.2d 1349 (Miss. 1987) (statutes of limitations protect against delay; due process requires prejudice and intentional delay to justify dismissal)
- Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1977) (prosecution after investigative delay not depriving due process absent tactical prejudice)
- Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1971) (due process may require dismissal if pre-indictment delay caused substantial prejudice and was intentional)
- Shaw, 555 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1977) (factors for prejudice: length of delay, reason for delay, prejudice to defense)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (constitutional-errors may be excepted from procedural bars)
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (bare assertion of constitutional rights insufficient to waive procedural bar)
- Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (requires some factual basis to waive procedural bar)
- Beal v. State, 58 So.3d 709 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (reference to prior determinations on voluntariness of plea)