359 So.3d 242
Miss. Ct. App.2023Background
- Clinton Winters was indicted for issuing a $250 worthless check (felony) and pled guilty in September 2017; judgment and a three‑year non‑reporting post‑release supervision (PRS) sentence were entered.
- Winters filed a first PCR in November 2017; the circuit court summarily dismissed it and that dismissal was not appealed.
- Winters violated PRS in 2019 (arrested with a stolen trailer and methamphetamine); his PRS was revoked.
- He filed a second PCR in November 2021 claiming his conviction should have been a misdemeanor and alleging he reimbursed the victim (money order; witnesses).
- The circuit court dismissed the November 2021 PCR as time‑barred, successive, and without merit; Winters appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under UPCCRA §99‑39‑5(2) | Winters asserted newly available evidence (reimbursement money order) to challenge conviction | No asserted statutory exception; alleged evidence does not fit enumerated exceptions (e.g., DNA/new intervening decision) | Motion time‑barred; Winters failed to meet statutory exceptions |
| Successive‑motion bar §99‑39‑23(6) | New witnesses and reimbursement evidence render a second PCR appropriate | Prior PCR dismissal bars second/successive motion; evidence was discoverable and not "practically conclusive" | Motion successive and barred; no qualifying exception shown |
| Merits: felony vs. misdemeanor classification | Winters contends offense should have been charged as misdemeanor (asserts higher felony threshold) | Statute makes checks of $100 or more a felony; Winters wrote a $250 check | Claim lacks merit; statute supports felony conviction |
| Newly discovered evidence / evidentiary hearing | Money order and witnesses would exonerate or change outcome; entitles him to hearing | Evidence was available at time of plea; not sufficiently new or "practically conclusive" to change result | No evidentiary hearing; evidence insufficient to warrant relief |
| Waiver of appeal & unrelated convictions | Attempts to raise right to appeal and issues from other state/federal cases | Guilty plea included waiver of appeal; appellate review limited to the PCR order and issues raised in that PCR | Appeal waived as to plea; other case issues are outside scope or procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for PCR rulings)
- Thinnes v. State, 196 So. 3d 204 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review support)
- Fluker v. State, 334 So. 3d 160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (petitioner bears burden to show statutory exception)
- Reardon v. State, 341 So. 3d 1004 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional defects)
- Rye v. State, 356 So. 3d 188 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (newly discovered evidence standard for evidentiary hearing)
- Jordan v. State, 21 So. 3d 697 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (new evidence must be sufficient to induce different verdict)
- Williams v. State, 669 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1996) (criteria for newly discovered evidence warranting new trial)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (previously recognized habeas exceptions to UPCCRA bars)
- Pollard v. State, 12 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (authority on withdrawing guilty plea after term of court)
- Nalls v. State, 344 So. 3d 310 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (appellate review limited to order appealed)
- Bland v. State, 312 So. 3d 417 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (issues not raised in PCR are procedurally barred on appeal)
- Smith v. State, 973 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (procedural bar principles)
- Hampton v. State, 148 So. 3d 1038 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court not in error on matters not presented)