Holliman v. State, 129 So. 3d 937

Holliman faced multiple felony drug charges with potential enhanced and consecutive habitual-offender exposure exceeding 50 years; defense negotiated a package plea substantially reducing exposure to effectively ten years.
On November 6, 2006 Holliman pled guilty to sale of alprazolam, sale of cocaine (both as habitual offender), and possession of a controlled substance in jail; judge accepted State’s recommended, more lenient concurrent sentences.
Nearly three years later Holliman filed a PCR motion alleging involuntary pleas (coercion/misrepresentation), incompetence at plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing where Holliman testified and the former defense attorney contradicted him.
The circuit court found the attorney’s testimony more credible, concluded Holliman’s pleas were voluntary and that he was competent, and denied PCR relief on August 24, 2010.
Holliman failed to timely appeal (30 days). He sought an out-of-time appeal ~420 days after the order, claiming he did not receive timely notice; the trial court denied the out-of-time appeal as untimely under M.R.A.P. 4(h).
This Court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, rejected Holliman’s arguments that good cause or the interests of justice required excusing the delay, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / out-of-time appeal	Holliman says he did not receive notice and requests an out-of-time appeal	State and trial court: motion filed well beyond Rule 4(h) limits; court lacks authority after 180 days	Denied; no jurisdiction to grant out-of-time appeal given ~420-day delay and additional failures to act within 7 days of receipt
Voluntariness of plea / coercion	Holliman claims counsel promised a 10-year sentence with only 5 to serve, making plea involuntary	State points to plea colloquy, counsel’s contrary testimony, and lenient negotiated sentence as evidence of voluntariness	Held voluntary; judge credited counsel and plea colloquy; recanted sworn plea statements insufficient
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Holliman claims counsel was constitutionally deficient in advising/inducing plea	State: counsel negotiated favorable package; substantial benefit from plea (reduction from 50+ years to ~10) undermines prejudice claim	Held: no ineffective assistance shown; plea bargain advantage weighs against finding prejudice
Competency / Rule 9.06 compliance	Holliman argues he lacked capacity and that no competency evaluation/hearing occurred as required	State: trial judge conducted on-the-record colloquy, counsel and defendant withdrew evaluation, judge satisfied Dusky standard	Held: judge substantially complied with Rule 9.06 and Dusky; competency adequately tested during plea colloquy

Clayton v. Hartsog, 970 So.2d 248 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for denial of out-of-time appeal)
Pre-Paid Legal Servs. v. Anderson, 873 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review and appellate procedure principles)
McGruder v. State, 886 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2003) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant out-of-time appeal after 180 days)
Pevey v. State, 914 So.2d 1287 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (difficulty of recanting sworn plea colloquy statements)
Benson v. State, 551 So.2d 188 (Miss. 1989) (adequacy of indictment notice for habitual-offender allegations)
Jay v. State, 25 So.3d 257 (Miss. 2009) (Rule 9.06 requires competency hearing after evaluation ordered and completed)
Sanders v. State, 9 So.3d 1132 (Miss. 2009) (same; importance of conducting competency proceedings)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1960) (competency standard: factual and rational understanding and ability to consult with counsel)