Eric Pierce v. State of Mississippi
226 So. 3d 1241
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2008, 18-year-old Eric Pierce robbed a Sonic employee at gunpoint; he was arrested after being pursued and injured by the victim.
- Pierce pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 17 years in MDOC; his plea colloquy and written plea petition contained sworn statements that he understood and voluntarily entered the plea.
- Pierce filed multiple post-conviction relief (PCR) motions: first dismissed in 2010 (no appeal), second dismissed in 2012 and affirmed on appeal, and a third filed April 25, 2016 (the matter here).
- In the 2016 PCR, Pierce (pro se) alleged his plea was involuntary because he was on painkillers and that counsel misinformed him (e.g., told him MDOC would release him at 21); he attached an affidavit from his mother claiming he was "spaced out."
- The circuit court denied the 2016 PCR as successive and time-barred; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding procedural bars applied and Pierce failed to show a fundamental-constitutional-rights exception or merit on voluntariness/IAC claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successive / statute-of-limitations | Pierce argued procedural bars should not apply because his sentence or plea was illegal and counsel misled him | State argued UPCCRA bars successive motions and guilty-plea PCRs must be filed within 3 years of conviction | Denied — PCR was successive and filed over 7 years after conviction, so barred |
| Fundamental-constitutional-rights exception | Pierce claimed constitutional error (involuntary plea due to intoxication) to evade procedural bars | State asserted Pierce failed to present a claim with any basis of truth to trigger the exception | Denied — no factual basis shown to invoke exception |
| Voluntariness / competency of plea | Pierce (via mother’s affidavit) said he was on Percocet/Flexeril and unable to understand plea | State relied on Pierce’s sworn plea petition and in-court sworn statements denying intoxication or incapacity | Denied — in-court oath and plea petition carry strong presumption of veracity and rebut the affidavit |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) | Pierce claimed counsel misinformed him and failed to investigate competency | State pointed to record where counsel advised him, and judge independently explained consequences; no deficient performance shown | Denied — Pierce did not prove deficiency or prejudice under Strickland; plea was knowing and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2008) (standard of review for PCR denials: factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal questions de novo)
- Pierce v. State, 115 So. 3d 869 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior appeal affirming dismissal of earlier PCR as successive and without merit)
- Evans v. State, 115 So. 3d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (mere assertion of constitutional violation does not trigger exception; claim must appear to have some basis in truth)
- Jones v. State, 949 So. 2d 872 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (collateral attack on a facially correct plea must include supporting affidavits and allege facts requiring further inquiry)
- Wright v. State, 577 So. 2d 387 (Miss. 1991) (an affidavit that is overwhelmingly belied by unimpeachable documentary evidence is a sham and does not require a hearing)
- Thomas v. State, 159 So. 3d 1212 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (statements made in open court under oath carry strong presumption of veracity)
- Williams v. State, 31 So. 3d 69 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; burden on defendant to prove invalidity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)