Johnston v. State
172 So. 3d 756
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Johnston pleaded guilty to three counts of armed robbery in 1983 and received three consecutive 30-year terms.
- He filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion on May 6, 2011 asserting the robberies were one transaction and only one offense.
- The circuit court denied PCR as time-barred and without merit on May 27, 2011.
- Mississippi Code §99-39-5(2) bars PCR motions filed more than three years after conviction, with exceptions for new evidence, intervening decisions, or detention on expired sentence.
- Johnston relied on Rowland v. State as an intervening decision, but the dissent cited by him is not binding and the issue was raised on appeal rather than in the PCR motion.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding no procedural or substantive error supported relief and there was no double jeopardy violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCR was timely under §99-39-5(2) and Rowland as an intervening decision. | Johnston urged Rowland as intervening. | State contends Rowland is not binding and the issue is procedurally barred. | Procedurally barred; no valid intervening-decision exception. |
| Whether three armed-robbery convictions violate double jeopardy. | Johnston asserts only one robbery occurred. | State argues three victims support separate offenses. | No double jeopardy violation; separate offenses under common nucleus. |
| Whether the PCR court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing. | Johnston seeks a merits hearing. | Court can deny without a hearing if no relief is due. | No error; discretionary denial without hearing proper. |
| Whether the claims were procedurally barred for failure to comply with Rule 28(a)(6). | Johnston's arguments lack proper contentions and citations. | State notes procedural-bar rules require adequate briefing. | Procedurally barred; bare assertions insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. State, 31 So.3d 656 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (standard for PCR review; de novo on questions of law; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss.2010) (intervening decision exception to procedural bars; fundamental-rights analysis)
- Henley v. State, 749 So.2d 246 (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (multiple convictions under single transaction; no double jeopardy barrier)
- Jones v. State, 122 So.3d 725 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (requires contentions with authorities; procedural-bar and briefing standards)