Ottis J. Cummings, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
203 So. 3d 1174
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 1979 Cummings pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and aggravated assault; after later convictions he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole.
- Cummings previously filed PCR motions in 2012 challenging the 1979 convictions; the circuit court dismissed them as time-barred and this Court affirmed in 2013.
- On July 6, 2015, Cummings (styled as a habeas petition) filed another PCR motion raising: illegal sentence, defective indictment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and involuntary plea.
- The circuit court dismissed the 2015 motion as time‑barred, successive‑writ barred, and barred by res judicata; Cummings appealed.
- The Court applied the three‑year limitations rule for guilty pleas and the successive‑writ/res judicata bars, holding Cummings’ motion was procedurally barred absent a statutory exception.
- The Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no applicable exception (intervening decision, new evidence, or expired sentence/revocation) that would overcome the procedural bars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / successive‑writ bar | Cummings argued his motion should be heard despite delay | State argued motion was filed well after the 3‑year limit and was successive | Dismissed: motion was time‑barred and successive‑writ barred |
| Intervening‑decision exception | Cummings cited multiple Mississippi cases he claimed altered outcome / preserve fundamental‑rights claims | State argued no intervening decision applied to revive his claims; issues already adjudicated | Rejected: cited cases did not create an exception to procedural bars for his claims |
| Merits — illegal sentence / defective indictment / ineffective counsel | Cummings renewed claims that his sentence was illegal, indictment defective, counsel ineffective | State pointed to prior adjudication and lack of merit; res judicata applied | Rejected: claims were previously litigated and without merit; barred by res judicata |
| Involuntary guilty plea | Cummings argued plea was involuntary and voids procedural bars | State noted precedent that involuntary‑plea claims are not per se fundamental to bypass bars; prior rulings addressed related claims | Rejected: involuntary‑plea argument does not overcome procedural bars here |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 477 So. 2d 191 (Miss. 1985) (discusses scope of certain postconviction exceptions)
- Luckett v. State, 582 So. 2d 428 (Miss. 1991) (addressed procedural bars in postconviction relief)
- Bester v. State, 188 So. 3d 526 (Miss. 2016) (overruled aspects of Luckett)
- Ivy v. State, 731 So. 2d 601 (Miss. 1999) (postconviction standards)
- Kennedy v. State, 732 So. 2d 184 (Miss. 1999) (postconviction relief principles)
- Rowland v. State, 98 So. 3d 1032 (Miss. 2012) (explains when fundamental‑rights claims may avoid procedural bars)
- Cummings v. State, 130 So. 3d 129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior appeal affirming dismissal of Cummings’ earlier PCR motions)