Derrick Stokes v. State of Mississippi
199 So. 3d 745
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Derrick Stokes pled guilty in 2008 to gratification of lust (15 years) and exploitation of a child (10 years, with 5 suspended), sentences to run consecutively.
- Stokes is legally deaf and repeatedly argued he was denied a sign-language interpreter at the plea hearing and that his pleas were involuntary.
- He filed multiple postconviction relief (PCR) motions (2010, 2013, 2014); earlier motions were dismissed; appeals were dismissed or affirmed, and prior appeal failures invoked res judicata and UPCCRA procedural bars.
- In October–December 2014 Stokes filed additional PCR motions raising ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, a defective-indictment claim, and requests for DNA testing; the circuit court dismissed as time-barred and successive-writ barred.
- On appeal, Stokes argued exceptions to procedural bars, entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, ineffective assistance, and indictment defects; the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural bars (timeliness/successive writ) | Stokes argued exceptions apply (due process/fundamental rights) | State argued PCR was filed >3 years after conviction and was successive; UPCCRA bars apply | Motion was time-barred and successive-writ barred; Stokes failed to show an exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to obtain text messages, challenge indictment, or secure interpreter | State invoked UPCCRA bars and res judicata; earlier PCRs raised these claims | Claim barred by procedural rules and res judicata; record did not show an exception for fundamental-rights violation |
| Defective indictment | Stokes contended indictment was fatally defective | State argued claim is time-barred and must be raised within three years | Claim is procedurally time-barred and not considered on the merits |
| Evidentiary hearing | Stokes claimed the court erred by dismissing without a hearing | State argued dismissal under § 99-39-11(2) was proper because motion and record showed no entitlement to relief | No error: court may summarily dismiss when motion and record show no entitlement to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 118 So. 3d 180 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (PCR timeliness rule for guilty pleas)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (procedural bars apply to ineffective-assistance claims)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from UPCCRA bars)
- Johnston v. State, 172 So. 3d 756 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (court may dismiss PCR without evidentiary hearing when record shows no entitlement to relief)
- Barnes v. State, 949 So. 2d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (defective-indictment claims barred if PCR not filed within three-year limit)