McCoy v. State
111 So. 3d 673
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- McCoy pleaded guilty in 2004 to two counts of burglary of a dwelling, one count of burglary of a building, and other felonies; sentencing in 2005 imposed concurrent terms.
- In 2005 McCoy filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion; appeal history includes a 2006 disposition in McCoy v. State.
- In 2007 and 2011, McCoy pursued additional PCR motions; the circuit court dismissed the 2011 motions as untimely and successive.
- The MississippiCourt of Appeals consolidated the three 2011 appeals for one ruling.
- The court applied UPCCRA standards, evaluating timeliness, succession, and asserted exceptions to procedural bars.
- The court affirmed the circuit court, holding McCoy’s motions untimely and successive with no viable exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence tolls the bars | McCoy—newly discovered bias evidence shows recusal needed | State—evidence not newly discovered or material to outcome | Not applicable; evidence not newly discovered or outcome-determinative |
| Whether an intervening Supreme Court decision affects outcome | McCoy—Jackson decision would have changed outcome | State—Jackson opinion withdrawn, no precedent altering burglary elements | No effect on outcome; intervening decision exception fails |
| Whether Rowland exception for fundamental rights applies to indictment | McCoy—indictments fail to allege ulterior offense, violating rights | State—burglary indictments allege intent to steal; properly pled | Rowland exception not satisfied; indictments sufficiently pled burglary |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel qualifies as an exception | McCoy—counsel ineffective for not challenging bias/indictment issues | State—no supported affidavits; guilty plea admitted understanding elements | Ineffective assistance claim insufficient to overcome procedural bars |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368 (Miss. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for PCR dismissal)
- Mitchener v. State, 964 So.2d 1188 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (procedural bars and standards for review)
- Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120 (Miss. 1999) (procedural bar standards and review principles)
- Pickle v. State, 942 So.2d 243 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (newly discovered evidence definition and standard)
- Jackson v. State, 67 So.3d 725 (Miss. 2011) (intervening decision analysis; substituted opinion after withdrawal)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (Rowland exception for fundamental-rights errors)
- Booker v. State, 716 So.2d 1064 (Miss. 1998) (burglary elements and general allegations of intent)
- Harrison v. State, 722 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1998) (elements of burglary including intent to commit some crime)
- Alford v. State, 656 So.2d 1186 (Miss. 1995) (burglary elements and intent framework)
- Bevill v. State, 669 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1996) (ineffective assistance standards; plea considerations)
- Smith v. State, 922 So.2d 43 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (ineffective assistance and procedural-bar context)
- Ivy v. State, 918 So.2d 84 (Miss. 2006) (plea validity and understanding elements)
- Wilson v. State, 577 So.2d 394 (Miss. 1991) (plea advisement and elements comprehension)