King v. State
2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 615
Miss. Ct. App.2010Background
- King pleaded guilty in 1997 to armed robbery and was sentenced to 25 years with nine years suspended; cocaine possession was sentenced to 3 years concurrent to armed robbery.
- In October 1997, King pleaded guilty to escape with a five-year sentence running concurrently with his other sentences.
- In April/May 2000, King filed a post-conviction relief motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to voluntariness of pleas and parole information.
- The Montgomery County Circuit Court denied the 2000 motion as meritless; this Court found no merit on appeal, and the Mississippi Supreme Court denied further relief in 2004.
- In January 2009, King filed a new motion for post-conviction relief with three affidavits claiming actual innocence of the armed robbery.
- The circuit court denied the 2009 motion as time-barred and as a successive writ; King appeals challenging timeliness and the asserted innocence evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion is an improper second or successive writ | King contends the motion presents new innocence evidence warranting an exception. | State argues it is a successive writ barred by statute. | Yes; the motion is successive and time-barred. |
| Whether the motion was timely filed under the post-conviction statute | King argues he relied on newly discovered facts and law (parole eligibility) learned in 2008. | State asserts discovery of the law in 2008 is not newly discovered evidence; timing bars relief. | No, untimely under statute. |
| Whether the affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence to excuse the bars | Affidavits allegedly show King’s innocence of the armed robbery. | Affidavits are insufficient and not newly discovered evidence. | No; affidavits do not constitute newly discovered evidence. |
| Whether actual innocence warrants an exception to procedural bars | King relies on asserted innocence to overcome procedural bars. | Actual innocence does not overcome procedural bars here. | No; actual-innocence claim does not excuse the bars. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. State, 941 So. 2d 804 (Miss. 2006) (de novo review of law questions in post-conviction appeals)
- Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595 (Miss. 1999) (standard for appellate review of post-conviction issues)
- Bank of Miss. v. S. Mem'l Park, Inc., 677 So. 2d 186 (Miss. 1996) (factors for legal error review in post-conviction context)
- Callins v. State, 975 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 2008) (clarifies procedural bar standards for PCRA petitions)
- Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2008) (analysis of time-bar and successive-writ exceptions)
- Pickle v. State, 942 So. 2d 243 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (parole eligibility not new discovery of evidence)