Elliott Freeman v. State of Mississippi
220 So. 3d 1024
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 Elliott Freeman pled guilty as a habitual offender to conspiracy to commit burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a dwelling, and petit larceny; he received consecutive and concurrent terms totaling decades in prison.
- The district attorney allowed habitual-offender treatment under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81.
- Freeman filed a first PCR in 2011 which was denied; his appeal was dismissed as untimely.
- In 2016 Freeman filed a second PCR asserting the burglary indictment failed to charge a crime; the circuit court summarily dismissed it as successive, time-barred, and meritless.
- Freeman raised additional claims on appeal (involuntary plea; ineffective assistance) that were not raised below.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding procedural bars applied and, on the merits, the burglary count was sufficient even without identifying the specific property taken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Freeman's second PCR is barred as successive and untimely | Freeman contends his indictment was defective so PCR is permissible | State argues UPCCRA bars successive/untimely PCRs | Affirmed: successive and time-barred under UPCCRA |
| Sufficiency of burglary indictment (failure to identify taken property) | Freeman: Count 2 insufficient because it did not specify property taken | State: Indictment read as whole (Count 3 lists property); burglary requires intent, not proof of actual taking | Held: Indictment sufficient; property identification not required to charge burglary |
| Voluntariness of plea | Freeman claims his guilty plea was involuntary | State points to thorough plea colloquy, factual basis, and Freeman’s sworn satisfaction with counsel | Held: Claim procedurally barred and contradicted by record; no merit |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Freeman asserts counsel was ineffective | State: Claim barred as successive/untimely and unsupported (Freeman said he was satisfied with counsel at plea) | Held: Procedurally barred and without record support |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. State, 195 So. 3d 765 (Miss. 2016) (burglary requires intent to commit some crime inside; actual commission of underlying crime need not be charged or proved)
- Dever v. State, 210 So. 3d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (assumed indictment challenge may be considered despite procedural defects in some circumstances)
- Jefferson v. State, 556 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1989) (procedural considerations for collateral review)
- Martin v. State, 65 So. 3d 882 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (indictment must be read as a whole to determine sufficiency)