Carter v. State
117 So. 3d 643
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Carter was indicted in 2009 for possession of stolen property as a habitual offender and in 2010 for identity theft and related charges; the 2011 amendment added “number” to Counts 2–3 and extended the indictment’s scope.
- Carter pled guilty on February 16, 2011, with an agreement that Counts 2–3 would be retired and habitual-offender status would not be added to the second indictment, resulting in concurrent and consecutive sentences.
- Carter received ten years (no parole) for possession of stolen property as a habitual offender and a consecutive fifteen-year term for identity theft, with thirteen suspended.
- Carter filed a PCCR motion on June 24, 2011, which the circuit court dismissed on August 26, 2011.
- Carter filed a second PCCR motion on January 30, 2012, which the circuit court dismissed February 29, 2012; this appeal follows.
- Court agrees the PCCR motion is procedurally barred as a successive writ under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6), but the merits are discussed to the extent raised by Carter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter’s PCCR was barred as a successive writ. | Carter contends some merits should be reviewed. | State asserts procedural bar under § 99-39-23(6). | Procedurally barred; affirm dismissal. |
| Whether waivers during guilty plea precluded challenges to warrants/affidavits. | Warrant/affidavit defects should be reviewable. | Plea waiver encompassed pre-plea defects. | Waived; no error on this issue. |
| Whether the addition of the word 'number' to Counts 2–3 substantively changed the indictment. | Amendment altered the offense’s substance. | Amendment did not alter substance; defense unaffected. | Not a material change; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. State, 23 So.3d 1100 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (waiver of warrant challenges when pleading guilty)
- Matthews v. State, 761 So.2d 931 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (plea waiver of pre-plea defects; subject-matter jurisdiction exception)
- Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss.1999) (whether amendments affect the offense; material alteration test)
- Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (standard of review for post-conviction relief; de novo for law)
- Nathan v. State, 552 So.2d 99 (Miss.1989) (statutory interpretation on substance of indictment)
- Ellis v. State, 469 So.2d 1256 (Miss.1985) (principles on substance and defense impact)