Quinton Carter v. State of Mississippi
2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 762
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Quinton Carter pled guilty on Oct. 4, 2006 to one count of sexual battery of a child under 14 (Miss. Code § 97-3-95(1)(d)) and was sentenced to 30 years (20 years to serve + 10 years postrelease supervision).
- Carter filed a pro se postconviction relief (PCR) motion on June 26, 2015, nearly nine years after his guilty plea.
- The trial court dismissed the PCR motion as time-barred under the UPCCRA three-year statute of limitations, finding Carter failed to show any statutory exception or produce affidavits warranting an evidentiary hearing.
- Carter argued (1) the State failed to prove the victim’s age (due process), (2) denial of his right to a speedy trial, and (3) the indictment failed to allege lack of consent (insufficient notice).
- The trial court and appellate court treated the guilty plea as waiving nonjurisdictional defects, reviewed the record (including plea colloquy and offer of proof), and rejected Carter’s claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State failed to prove the victim’s age, denying due process | Carter: No birth certificate or sworn testimony proved victim’s age; plea lacked factual basis | State/DeSoto County: Plea colloquy and offer of proof established victim was under 14; guilty plea waives proof-of-elements claims | Held: Claim lacks merit; plea and record supplied sufficient factual basis (plea waiver applies) |
| Whether Carter was denied a speedy trial | Carter: Arrested Jan 2004, not before court until Oct 2006; never knowingly waived speedy-trial right | State: Guilty plea waives speedy-trial right; delay attributable to Carter’s counsel changes and request for mental evaluation | Held: Claim lacks merit; plea waived the right and delays were not chargeable to the State |
| Whether indictment was defective for failing to allege lack of victim consent | Carter: Indictment didn’t allege the offense was "against the will" of the victim, so notice was defective | State: Lack of consent is not an element of § 97-3-95(1)(d); indictment tracked statutory language and provided fair notice | Held: Claim lacks merit; consent is not an essential element of the charged statutory offense |
| Whether PCR was timely or excepted from UPCCRA limitations | Carter: Asserted fundamental-rights violations to avoid time bar | State: Carter failed to demonstrate statutory exceptions or prima facie fundamental-rights errors; burden on movant to show entitlement | Held: PCR dismissed as time-barred; Carter did not meet exceptions or produce evidence warranting relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. State, 110 So. 3d 790 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (guilty plea waives prosecution’s duty to prove each element)
- Jefferson v. State, 556 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1989) (valid guilty plea waives certain trial rights)
- Watson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1034 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (victim’s birth certificate not required; age may be proved by testimony)
- Kyles v. State, 185 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional trial rights, including speedy trial)
- Palmer v. State, 140 So. 3d 448 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (indictment under § 97-3-95 need not allege lack of victim consent)