293 So.3d 848
Miss. Ct. App.2019Background
- In Jan. 2003 Lawrence was indicted in Oktibbeha County for murder and felony DUI (two prior DUI convictions). His jury trial began April 2004; after the State rested he pleaded guilty to murder. The court accepted the plea and sentenced him to life; the felony DUI count was retired to the file.
- At the April 27, 2004 plea colloquy Lawrence attested the plea was voluntary, acknowledged counsel’s assistance, and admitted he understood the court—not counsel—determined the sentence; he testified he knew murder carried a life sentence.
- Lawrence previously filed a PCR motion attacking his plea; the denial was affirmed on appeal in Lawrence v. State, 970 So. 2d 1291 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
- On Oct. 2, 2018 Lawrence (pro se) filed a second PCR motion claiming the indictment was defective and counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge it.
- The circuit court summarily denied relief as barred by the UPCCRA three-year statute of limitations and by the prohibition on successive writs; Lawrence appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (statute of limitations) | Lawrence: his defective-indictment claim allows relief despite delay | State: PCR filed long after 3-year limit; no qualifying exception applies | Court: Motion time-barred under Miss. Code §99-39-5(2) |
| Applicability of statutory exceptions | Lawrence: relies on McNeal (indictment defect) as controlling | State: McNeal is a preceding decision, not an intervening decision; no newly discovered evidence or other exception | Court: No statutory exception shown; exceptions not met |
| Successive-writ prohibition | Lawrence: merits of claim justify second petition | State: UPCCRA bars successive petitions; Lawrence already had a prior PCR | Court: Second PCR barred as successive-writ under §99-39-23(6) |
| Ineffective assistance / indictment defect merits | Lawrence: counsel ineffective for not challenging indictment; indictment defective | State: Procedural bars prevent review; prior plea colloquy and prior PCR decision undermine claim | Court: Claims not considered on merits because procedurally barred; previous plea colloquy and prior PCR rejection noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. State, 970 So. 2d 1291 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (affirming denial of prior PCR challenging plea)
- Green v. State, 242 So. 3d 176 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for PCR denials)
- Putnam v. State, 212 So. 3d 86 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (identifying fundamental-rights exceptions that can survive procedural bars)
- McNeal v. State, 658 So. 2d 1345 (Miss. 1995) (indictment-defect authority relied on by Lawrence)
- White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (mere assertions of constitutional violations do not overcome procedural bars)
- Brandon v. State, 108 So. 3d 999 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (movant bears burden to prove an exception to time bars)
- Salter v. State, 184 So. 3d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (successive-petition bar requires movant to present all known claims initially)