David Ward v. State of Mississippi
2016-CP-01284-COA
Miss. Ct. App.Dec 12, 2017Background
- David Ward pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon after the State dropped habitual-offender enhancement; court found plea voluntary and sentenced him to 10 years.
- Ward filed a first post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion raising grand-jury irregularities and ineffective assistance of counsel; it was denied on May 27, 2016.
- Ward filed a second PCR motion on June 10, 2016, reasserting the same claims; the Rankin County Circuit Court denied it as successive and meritless on August 24, 2016.
- Ward appealed the denial of the second PCR motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed dismissal de novo under Mississippi Code § 99-39-11(2).
- The court found the second PCR motion barred as a successive writ under the UPCCRA and, on the merits, held the indictment and counsel’s performance were legally sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of grand jury indictment | Ward: grand jury was no longer impaneled in Sept. 2014; indictment therefore invalid | State: a grand jury, once impaneled, serves successive terms; indictment met Rule 7.06 requirements | Indictment valid; no clear proof of grand-jury discharge; indictment satisfied statutory/rule form requirements |
| Notice/contents of indictment | Ward: indictment failed to notify him adequately of charges | State: indictment included name, filing date, jurisdiction, offense date, foreman signature and required language | Indictment complied with Rule 7.06 and § 99-7-9; claim fails |
| Involuntariness of plea based on indictment defects | Ward: defective indictment rendered guilty plea involuntary | State: plea colloquy and plea petition show plea was knowing and voluntary | Plea found voluntary; defects not shown and claim procedurally barred |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Ward: counsel failed to challenge grand jury and suppress vehicle custody/evidence; would have gone to trial | State: record (plea colloquy) shows Ward was satisfied with counsel and would not meet Strickland burden | Counsel’s performance not shown deficient or prejudicial; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Salter v. State, 64 So. 3d 514 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (ineffective-assistance and involuntary-plea claims are subject to UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (Miss. 2000) (same)
- Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120 (Miss. 1999) (standards for PCR appeal and procedural-alive requirement)
- Stokes v. State, 199 So. 3d 745 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (order denying PCR bars successive PCR under UPCCRA)
- Gray v. State, 819 So. 2d 542 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (grand jury, once impaneled, serves successive terms absent clear proof of discharge)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Henderson v. State, 89 So. 3d 598 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant must show he would have gone to trial and that outcome would differ to prevail on PCR ineffective-assistance claim)