301 So.3d 766
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background:
- In Sept. 1997 Cook stole two Yamaha four-wheelers from two different Rankin County addresses and was indicted on two counts of grand larceny.
- On Feb. 27, 1998 Cook pleaded guilty and on Mar. 20, 1998 received two concurrent four-year sentences suspended in favor of a RID requirement, five years probation, restitution, and costs; he served no prison time.
- In 2012–13 Cook was convicted of sexual battery and of directing a minor to commit a felony; the State amended the indictment under the habitual-offender statute based on the two 1998 grand larceny convictions, and Cook was sentenced to life without parole.
- Cook’s direct appeal was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2015.
- On June 17, 2019 Cook filed a pro se petition styled as habeas/coram nobis to vacate his 1998 convictions, asserting lack of jurisdiction/defective indictments, involuntary plea/ineffective assistance, and arguing the petition was not a PCR.
- The Rankin County circuit court treated the pleading as a UPCCRA PCR motion, found it time-barred and inadequately supported (particularly the ineffective-assistance claim), denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Cook's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1997 indictments were fatally defective (jurisdiction/venue and statutory language) | Indictments failed to establish jurisdiction/venue and did not track current felony statutory language (claimed felony threshold changed) | Indictments alleged Rankin County, specific property/VINs and used the statute in effect in 1997; they were legally sufficient | Indictments were not fatally defective; Rankin County was proper and the controlling statute is the version in effect when the offense occurred |
| Whether the petition was habeas/coram nobis vs. a PCR motion | Petition styled as habeas/coram nobis and not subject to UPCCRA timing/requirements | UPCCRA replaced post-conviction habeas and coram nobis for collateral attack; pleading must be treated as PCR | Petition properly treated as a PCR motion under UPCCRA; coram nobis/habeas are not the available post-conviction avenues |
| Whether the PCR was procedurally barred (statute of limitations & custody/standing) | Timeliness exceptions apply; also argued he need not be in custody to challenge prior convictions | Motion filed >3 years after conviction (or >3 years after 2015 decision); UPCCRA time bar applies; standing/custody issue was moot given other defects | Motion is time-barred under UPCCRA; court erroneously stated custody requirement but that error was harmless (Howell later removed custody requirement) |
| Whether Cook received ineffective assistance of counsel in 1998 (involuntary plea) | Counsel failed to advise elements, collateral consequences, and exposure to ex post facto enhancement; plea was not knowing/voluntary | Plea petition and colloquy show Cook was advised of rights, elements, sentencing ranges, and satisfied with counsel; Cook provided no supporting affidavits | IAC claim rejected: Cook’s plea form and statements contradict his claim and he failed to supply affidavits or other evidence to overcome the procedural bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Raine v. State, 151 So. 3d 216 (Miss. Ct. App.) (guilty-plea statements may establish jurisdiction/venue)
- Presley v. State, 176 So. 3d 158 (Miss. Ct. App.) (UPCCRA supplanted post-conviction habeas for collateral attacks)
- Edmond v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 783 So. 2d 675 (Miss.) (distinguishing habeas and UPCCRA remedies)
- Howell v. State, 283 So. 3d 1100 (Miss.) (statutory amendment removed custody requirement for UPCCRA standing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (ineffective-assistance two-part performance/prejudice standard)
- Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss.) (ineffective-assistance claims can constitute an exception to UPCCRA procedural bars)