313 So.3d 500
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- On December 26, 2009 Marcus Harris shot two people; one victim died and another was permanently paralyzed. He was indicted for capital murder (robbery as the underlying felony) and aggravated assault.
- After opening statements in March 2011 Harris withdrew his not-guilty plea and pleaded guilty to murder and aggravated assault; the court sentenced him to life plus 20 years and imposed fines and costs.
- In 2014 Harris filed a petition to clarify his sentence; the trial court denied relief and this Court treated and affirmed that filing as a post-conviction-relief (PCR) matter, finding it time-barred.
- Harris filed a second PCR motion in May 2018 asserting (inter alia) ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of a factual basis for his plea, involuntariness of the plea, a defective indictment, and improper judicial participation in plea discussions; he also sought discovery and expansion of the record.
- The trial court denied the 2018 PCR as time-barred and without merit after reviewing the plea colloquy, plea petition, opening statements, and other documents; Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Harris' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural bars: time limitation and successive-writ | His claims are cognizable despite delay; some implicate fundamental rights so exceptions apply | PCR filed ~7 years after conviction; § 99-39-5(2) three-year limit applies; claims could/should have been raised earlier (successive-writ) | Motion is time-barred and successive-writ barred; Harris failed to prove an applicable exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) as exception and on the merits | Counsel failed to investigate, failed to preserve defenses (self-defense), allowed plea without factual basis, didn’t object to indictment, and allowed court participation | Counsel negotiated charge reduction, performance not shown deficient or prejudicial; claims lack specificity and supporting affidavits; record contradicts assertions | IAC not shown with requisite specificity/affidavits; no extraordinary circumstances to overcome procedural bars; merits denied |
| Factual basis and voluntariness of guilty plea | No factual basis admitted for elements (esp. robbery); plea involuntary due to coercion, jail conditions, and many letters complaining about counsel | Plea petition and colloquy show Harris admitted shooting victims, understood rights and consequences, and pleaded voluntarily; state had surveillance video and opening statements supported elements | Court found sufficient factual basis and that plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered |
| Indictment sufficiency / subject-matter jurisdiction | Count I defective for failing to identify correct capital-murder statute subsection; thus indictment inadequate | Indictment heading and language substantially described the offense and cited the code section; provided adequate notice | Indictment was adequate; no jurisdictional defect |
| Judicial participation / discovery and expansion of record | Trial judge improperly participated in plea discussions; requested transcripts, video, and 38 letters to prove claims | No record evidence supports judicial participation claim; trial court did not rule on discovery and Harris failed to pursue a hearing; record already contains relevant transcripts and letters | Judicial-participation claim unsupported; discovery/expansion issue waived/abandoned; requested materials in record do not support claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McComb v. State, 135 So. 3d 928 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (successive PCR motions barred)
- Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d 1239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (procedural-bar exceptions and burden on movant)
- Salter v. State, 184 So. 3d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (courts must address fundamental-rights claims despite procedural bars)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (identifies fundamental-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- Lackaye v. State, 166 So. 3d 560 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (movant’s lone affidavit contradicted by record does not require evidentiary hearing)
- Gable v. State, 748 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 1999) (record controls where affidavits conflict with unimpeachable documents)
- Timmons v. State, 176 So. 3d 168 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (sources that can establish factual basis for a plea)
- Baker v. State, 95 So. 3d 692 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (indictment sufficient if words substantially describe the crime and code section)