James F. Putnam v. State of Mississippi
212 So. 3d 86
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1997 Putnam pleaded guilty to armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm, and embezzlement; he admitted pointing a gun at a pharmacist, stated he intended to rob the store but left without taking anything, and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a 20-year term (concurrent with other sentences).
- Putnam filed multiple postconviction-relief (PCR) challenges over the years; a prior PCR (appealed) resulted in vacatur of some enhancements and rejection of his claim that the plea was involuntary.
- In May 2012 Putnam filed the PCR at issue here, challenging only the armed-robbery conviction/sentence as illegal and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him on elements of the offense.
- The trial court dismissed the 2012 PCR as time-barred and a successive writ; it also found the claims without merit. Putnam appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether Putnam’s claims fit exceptions to UPCCRA procedural bars (fundamental-rights exception) and whether the plea colloquy supplied a sufficient factual basis for armed robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 PCR is time‑barred/successive or falls within UPCCRA exceptions | Putnam: claim asserts violation of fundamental constitutional rights (illegal sentence/ineffective counsel) and so is excepted from procedural bars | State: PCR was filed >3 years after judgment, is successive, and Putnam has not shown an applicable exception | Court: PCR is procedurally barred as successive/time‑barred; Putnam failed to carry burden to show exception applies |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claim overcomes procedural bars | Putnam: counsel failed to advise him regarding elements of armed robbery (taking/carrying) and would have affected plea | State: prior PCR adjudicated similar claim on merits; ineffective‑assistance does not automatically bypass procedural bars | Court: claim is barred; prior decision found counsel’s omission was not prejudicial (Strickland) and Mississippi law allows conviction for attempted robbery |
| Whether plea lacked factual basis thereby rendering sentence illegal | Putnam: no request/demand or taking occurred, so conduct did not support armed robbery; plea therefore illegal | State: plea colloquy shows Putnam admitted pointing a gun, intending to rob, and placing victim in fear — facts track the armed‑robbery statute | Court: factual basis was sufficient (pointing exhibited deadly force and intent); claim waived by guilty plea and is not a fundamental‑rights exception here |
| Whether prior rulings preclude relitigation (res judicata / successive‑writ rule) | Putnam: contends constitutional claims should bypass bars | State: prior final orders bar second or successive petitions absent narrow exceptions | Court: prior rulings and precedent foreclose Putnam’s claims absent new, qualifying intervening law or evidence; none shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes prejudice/deficiency test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Putnam v. State, 877 So. 2d 468 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (prior PCR adjudication addressing voluntariness and indictment/factual‑basis issues)
- Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (fundamental‑rights exception and due‑process concerns in successive PCRs)
- Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015) (asserting a constitutional violation is insufficient; must show some basis to overcome procedural bars)
- Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (procedural‑bar waiver requires some basis for truth of constitutional claim)
- Jones v. State, 174 So. 3d 902 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (standards of review for summary dismissal of PCR)
- Harper v. State, 434 So. 2d 1367 (Miss. 1983) (deadly force or threat sufficient to place victim in fear)