Hughes v. State
106 So. 3d 836
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hughes pled guilty to armed robbery in 2006 and received a 25-year sentence with 15 to serve, 10 suspended, and 3 years post-release supervision.
- Hughes filed a first PCR in October 2007, and a second PCR on March 13, 2009, which was denied March 31, 2009; he did not appeal that denial.
- A third PCR was filed December 13, 2010; the circuit court dismissed both the 2007 and 2010 motions on May 16, 2011.
- The appellate court held the 2007 and 2010 PCR motions to be successive and time-barred under Mississippi law.
- Hughes argued the guilt was involuntary and counsel ineffective, and sought to recast errors as fundamental rights to overcome bars; the court disagreed.
- Standard of review for PCR denials is abuse of discretion, with de novo review on questions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Hughes's PCR motions barred as successive and time-barred? | Hughes contends claims raise constitutional rights not barred. | Court properly bars successive and time-barred motions under §99-39-23(6) and §99-39-5(2). | Yes; motions are barred as successive and untimely. |
| Do any exceptions to the procedural bars apply to Hughes's claims? | Claims implicate fundamental rights that may evade procedural bars. | No exception applies; mere assertions of constitutional rights do not overcome bars. | No exceptions apply. |
| Was Hughes's guilty plea involuntary or counsel ineffective to overcome the bars? | Guilty plea and ineffective assistance undermine validity of conviction. | Plea was voluntary; counsel performance was not shown to be deficient; barred by procedure. | No; claims fail to overcome procedural bars. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard; strong procedural-bar framework for PCR)
- White v. State, 59 So.3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (summary dismissal if no substantial claim to relief)
- Robinson v. State, 19 So.3d 140 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural bars; need substantial living claim)
- Madden v. State, 52 So.3d 411 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (applies successive-writ bar to issues previously addressed)
- Smith v. State, 922 So.2d 43 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims must satisfy Strickland and are subject to bar)
- Trotter v. State, 907 So.2d 397 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (involuntary guilty-plea claims do not override procedural bars)
- Kennedy v. State, 732 So.2d 184 (Miss. 1999) (illegal sentence as fundamental right not subject to time-bar)
- Cumbest v. State, 456 So.2d 209 (Miss. 1984) (State electing charge under multiple statutes; proper notice suffices)