Brandon v. State
108 So. 3d 999
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Brandon’s PCR sought relief from four convictions in two cause numbers in a single motion.
- Mississippi law requires a separate PCR motion for each judgment under the one-judgment rule and for each conviction.
- All four convictions were sentenced in a single order on July 9, 2007, with a guilty plea for manslaughter and jury verdicts for the others.
- The PCR judge denied relief after considering Brandon’s claims, including ineffective assistance and recusal/continuance requests.
- Brandon appealed, challenging both the denial of PCR and the related motions to recuse and for continuance.
- The court held the manslaughter claim untimely and affirmed the denial of PCR as to the remaining convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a single PCR motion attack multiple judgments? | Brandon argues one motion may attack all four convictions. | State argues separate motions are required for each judgment/conviction. | One-judgment rule violated; but no harm in the court addressing multiple judgments in one motion. |
| Is the manslaughter conviction time-barred under § 99-39-5(2)? | Brandon contends some challenges remain timely. | Manslaughter challenge untimely under three-year limit after guilty-plea judgment. | Manslaughter claim barred; time-bar applies per § 99-39-5(2). |
| Were the remaining convictions properly denied on the merits? | Brandon contends ineffective assistance and other trial errors entitle relief. | No clear error in findings; trial strategy and evidence rulings were permissible. | No manifest abuse of discretion; PCR motion denied on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 2 So.3d 747 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (one-judgment rule; separate motions required; harmless error when no merit)
- Mock v. State, 76 So.3d 223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (single ruling on multiple judgments may cause no harm)
- White v. State, 59 So.3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (three-year PCR time bar; when to commence for guilty plea vs. jury verdict)
- Steward v. State, 18 So.3d 895 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (timing for PCR when no direct appeal)
- Hathcock v. S. Farm Bur. Cas. Ins. Co., 912 So.2d 844 (Miss. 2005) (presumption of impartiality; standard for recusal/appellate review)
- In re Dissolution of Marriage of Profilet, 826 So.2d 91 (Miss. 2002) (continuance and evidence-admission discretion standard)
- Hill v. State, 60 So.3d 824 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice prong)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)