Cummings v. State
130 So. 3d 129
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Cummings pled guilty in 1979 to burglary of a dwelling and aggravated assault and was sentenced; later, in 2009, he was convicted of felony DUI.
- Based on the 1979 convictions, he was found to be a habitual offender and sentenced to life without parole.
- On June 11, 2012, Cummings filed two PCR motions challenging the 1979 convictions; the motions were consolidated and dismissed as time-barred on June 14, 2012.
- On appeal, Cummings challenges: (1) time-bar dismissal; (2) illegal sentence; (3) defective indictments; (4) habitual-offender status; (5) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court dismissed the PCR motions and the appellate court reviews the denials de novo as a question of law.
- The court affirms the dismissal, addressing issues 1–3 together as related.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR petitions were time-barred | Cummings asserts time-bar exceptions apply | State argues no statutory/constitutional exception applies | Time-bar bars relief; no valid exception shown |
| Whether the sentence as habitual-offender was illegal | Cummings claims involuntary pleas and failure to inform | State disputes claims; lack of authority cited | Procedurally barred; not reviewed on merits |
| Whether indictments were defective for lack of formal language | Indictments failed to terminate with ‘against the peace and dignity’ and foreman signed | Waived upon guilty pleas; any defect immaterial | Indictments are without merit |
| Whether the indictments' elements (bodily injury vs serious bodily injury) were defective | Aggressive assault indictment required serious bodily injury | No such element required for aggravated assault with deadly weapon | No merit; elements properly alleged |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance | Statements were involuntary; counsel deficient | No deficiency shown; no prejudice proven | No ineffective-assistance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 95 So.3d 760 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (fundamental rights may toll procedural bars in PCR context)
- Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (fundamental rights alone do not waive time bars)
- Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (must show basis for truth to overcome procedural bars)
- Barnes v. State, 949 So.2d 879 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (defects waived by guilty plea when timely)
- Clark v. State, 54 So.3d 304 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (waiver of non-jurisdictional indictment defects by plea)
- Kleckner v. State, 109 So.3d 1072 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (requirement to cite authority; procedural default rule)
- Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 20 (Miss.1992) (aggravated assault with deadly weapon elements)
- Cole v. State, 918 So.2d 890 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (ineffective-assistance standard)