Brian Williams v. State of Mississippi
158 So. 3d 1171
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Brian Williams pled guilty (Oct. 2009) to one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault; concurrent sentences of 18 years each (13 to serve after 5 suspended) plus five years post-release supervision.
- Williams filed multiple PCCR motions; two prior appeals affirmed denials addressing speedy-trial, voluntariness of plea, and ineffective assistance claims.
- On July 23, 2013, Williams filed a third PCCR motion alleging his indictment failed to allege essential elements of armed robbery and aggravated assault and that counsel was ineffective for not challenging these defects.
- The Sunflower County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the motion as a successive writ under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo questions of law and for abuse of discretion factual rulings; it affirmed dismissal, finding the claims procedurally barred and without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third PCCR is barred as successive | Williams argued indictment defects raise fundamental constitutional errors that avoid the successive-writ bar | State argued UPCCRA bars successive motions absent statutory exception and Williams did not meet exception | The motion is procedurally barred under § 99-39-23(6); no fundamental-right violation shown |
| Whether the armed-robbery count omitted an essential element | Williams contended indictment failed to allege felonious taking by exhibition of a deadly weapon (or other element) | State argued the indictment, despite poor grammar, alleged taking of another’s property by exhibition of a gun and charged armed robbery sufficiently | Court held indictment sufficiently charged armed robbery; guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional defects |
| Whether the aggravated-assault count was defective for omitting “serious” bodily injury | Williams argued the indictment failed to plead required injury element | State noted Williams pled to an assault with a deadly weapon under § 97-3-7(2)(b), which requires only “bodily injury,” not “serious bodily injury” | Court held the charge matched the statutory subsection requiring only bodily injury; no constitutional violation |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge indictment defects | Williams claimed counsel should have objected to defective counts | State and court treated the IAC claim as derivative of the meritless indictment challenges and noted procedural bars for successive IAC claims | Court found IAC claim without merit because the underlying indictment challenges failed; procedural bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 98 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (prior appeal affirming denial of PCCR on speedy-trial claims)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior appeal addressing voluntariness of plea and ineffective assistance claims)
- Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390 (Miss. 1991) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
- Ellzey v. State, 196 So. 2d 889 (Miss. 1967) (waiver by guilty plea precedent)
- Register v. State, 97 So. 2d 919 (Miss. 1957) (elements of armed robbery: taking by violence or threat by exhibition of a deadly weapon)
- Henderson v. State, 445 So. 2d 1364 (Miss. 1984) (indictment need not be grammatically perfect)
- Evans v. State, 725 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 1997) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)