Phillip Fredenburg v. State of Mississippi
203 So. 3d 638
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2008 Phillip Fredenburg pleaded guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 20 years with 5 years suspended. He affirmed under oath that counsel had explained the charges, he understood the plea petition, and he was not on medication or mentally impaired.
- The victim identified Fredenburg from a photo lineup and co-defendant Cage Wright provided a statement implicating Fredenburg.
- In June 2015 (nearly seven years after the plea) Fredenburg filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) motion asserting: involuntary/unintelligent plea due to mental illness, ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violation based on co-defendants’ leniency, and threats by co-indictees.
- The trial court summarily denied the PCR motion as time-barred and for lack of evidentiary support; Fredenburg appealed.
- The Court of Appeals applied the UPCCRA three-year limitations rule and held Fredenburg failed to show an exception (fundamental-rights/ineffective-assistance exception) or present evidentiary support to overcome the procedural bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations / UPCCRA time-bar | PCR timely excused because medication stabilization delayed filing; ineffective assistance/fundamental-rights exception applies | Motion filed nearly seven years after conviction; UPCCRA three-year bar applies and exceptions not met | Court: Motion untimely under §99-39-5(2); Fredenburg failed to show an exception |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to pursue mental-health defense, didn’t interview witnesses ("Frank," store employees), and drafted plea petition with falsehoods | Claims are conclusory, supported only by Fredenburg’s assertions; plea colloquy shows satisfaction with counsel and counsel advised him | Court: Insufficient specific, corroborating evidence; Strickland standard not met; claim fails |
| Involuntary / unintelligent plea (mental incompetency) | Plea was not knowing/voluntary due to ADHD, conduct disorder, delusional episodes; medical records show psychiatric history | Plea colloquy reflects competency; medical records predate the offense and do not show inability to know right from wrong; no affidavits corroborating incapacity | Court: Record shows plea was knowing/intelligent; submitted medical records insufficient and stale; claim fails |
| Brady / co-defendant leniency information | Entitled to know co-defendants’ leniency agreements; such evidence would be favorable/impeaching | Guilty plea waives many Brady claims as to impeachment/plea bargaining information; no evidence produced of any leniency agreement; no prejudice shown | Court: Guilty plea precludes this Brady claim; no proof of suppressed favorable evidence; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose favorable material evidence)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (limits post-plea Brady claims regarding impeachment/plea information)
- Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (Miss. 2000) (ineffective-assistance claims subject to UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Salter v. State, 64 So. 3d 514 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (discussion of ineffective-assistance under UPCCRA)
- Avery v. State, 179 So. 3d 1182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (plea-specific ineffective-assistance pleading requirements)