Grogan v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 692
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grogan pled guilty to one count of sexual battery (cause 002) and two counts of gratification of lust (cause 004) in 2007; he was sentenced to 20 years for 002 and consecutive 2-year terms for 004; he filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion in 2010 alleging various errors; the trial court dismissed the PCR as barred by the successive-writ provision 99-39-23(6); the appellate court affirmed the dismissal as barred and noted procedural requirements; the court limited review to issues related to cause 002 and Grogan’s pleadings per section 99-39-9(2); Grogan challenged the effectiveness of counsel, due process, and the validity of his plea, among other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grogan’s PCR was barred as a successive writ | Grogan asserts exceptions to the bar apply. | State contends no exception fits and the motion is barred. | Yes, barred; no applicable exception. |
| Whether Grogan received due process by not being advised of appeal rights | Grogan preserved due process claim. | State argues no denial occurred. | No reversible error found on due process claim. |
| Whether the conviction lacked admitted elements | Grogan claims failure to admit all elements violated due process. | State contends plea colloquy established elements. | No merit; record supports elements admitted. |
| Whether the plea violated Rule 9.06 (Uniform Rules) | Grogan contends plea procedure was improper. | State asserts proper plea procedure was followed. | No error found; rule compliance supported by record. |
| Whether Grogan received ineffective assistance of counsel | Grogan asserts ineffectiveness on PCR claims. | State maintains no substantial deficiency proven. | Barred by successive-writ rulings; merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beal v. State, 58 So.3d 709 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing denial of PCR; factual clear-error, legal de novo)
- Doss v. State, 19 So.3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (de novo review of legal conclusions in PCR appeals)
- White v. State, 59 So.3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (UPCCRA procedural bars; exceptions for constitutional rights)
- Bowie v. State, 949 So.2d 60 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (bar to second or successive motions; exceptions must be shown)
- Madden v. State, 52 So.3d 411 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (burden on movant to show claims are not barred as successive writs)