Johnson v. State
137 So. 3d 336
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Johnson was indicted for gratification of lust and pleaded guilty on June 12, 2009; the trial court accepted his plea after a colloquy finding it knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- The court sentenced Johnson to 15 years with seven years suspended and five years post-release supervision on July 20, 2009.
- Johnson attempted an appeal in August 2009; the attempt was dismissed as untimely by this Court in November 2009.
- Johnson filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion, denied by the circuit court on September 23, 2010; he later sought permission to proceed with an out-of-time appeal in late 2012/early 2013.
- The circuit court dismissed the out-of-time appeal motion as facially without merit under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2); Johnson appealed the dismissal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Johnson failed to show entitlement to an out-of-time appeal or good cause to suspend the appellate timing rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson is entitled to an out-of-time appeal after his guilty plea and delayed filings | Johnson sought an out-of-time appeal to raise sufficiency of evidence, Miranda/post-Miranda issues, prior-bad-act evidence, and sentence legality | State/circuit court argued Johnson failed to show counsel or court actions prevented a timely appeal or that he was without fault for delay | Denied — Johnson failed to meet the burden for an out-of-time appeal; no abuse of discretion in dismissal |
| Whether Rule 4(a) timing may be suspended for justice/good cause | Johnson implicitly asked Rule 2(c)/Rule 4 suspension to excuse his late appeal | Court: suspension requires showing that the delay was through no fault of the movant and caused by counsel or court action | Denied — no showing justice demanded suspension; no good cause shown |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the out-of-time appeal motion | Johnson argued facts warranted further factfinding | State/circuit court maintained the motion was facially insufficient and summary dismissal was proper | Denied — record lacked evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether guilty-plea posture affects procedural course for relief | Johnson attempted to treat his matters as appealable despite guilty plea consequences | Court noted guilty pleas limit direct appellate pleadings and require timely filings in trial court and adherence to procedural statutes | Affirmed — guilty-plea posture reinforced need for timely and procedurally proper filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickey v. State, 662 So.2d 1106 (Miss. 1995) (movant must show by preponderance that he asked counsel to appeal and counsel failed to perfect appeal through no fault of movant)
- Parker v. State, 921 So.2d 397 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (review of summary denial of out-of-time appeal is for abuse of discretion; Rule 2(c) suspension is discretionary)
- Havard v. State, 911 So.2d 991 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (out-of-time appeal may be granted where conviction prevented timely appeal through no fault of defendant by attorney or trial court)
- Stokes v. State, 66 So.3d 746 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate standard: circuit court factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal questions reviewed de novo)