Rigdon v. State
126 So. 3d 931
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rigdon pled guilty in March 2007 to two separate crimes, robbery of Culpepper and capital murder of Milam, with sentences of 15 years and life to run consecutively.
- Rigdon filed a pro se post-conviction relief motion which appears timely within the three-year period, though the docket and signatures suggest March 2010 filing within the limit.
- The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR motion on the ground that it attacked more than one judgment, violating the one-judgment rule, and found no merit.
- Rigdon’s motion sought relief against two judgments in a single PCR, violating Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-9(2).
- The court also considered and declined to reach merits because of procedural bar, ruling that there was no entitlement to relief on the face of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single PCR may target multiple judgments | Rigdon violated the one-judgment rule by seeking relief from two judgments in one motion. | The motion improperly attacked more than one judgment, requiring dismissal under § 99-39-9(2). | affirmed dismissal for procedural bar under the one-judgment rule |
| Whether Rigdon’s PCR merits support relief despite procedural bar | Rigdon’s claims show the trial court error in plea, counsel, and indictment. | No meritorious claims are shown on the face of the motion or exhibits. | yes, lack of merit supports dismissal |
| Whether Rigdon’s guilty plea was involuntary | Rigdon claims she did not understand charges and was coerced. | Plea colloquy shows understanding; no coercion; factual basis established. | no merit; plea voluntary |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | Counsel misled, threatened, withheld discovery, or failed to conduct discovery. | Affidavits are lacking; affidavits alone are insufficient without corroboration; prior acknowledgments negating coercion. | no merit; claims insufficient |
| Whether Rigdon was properly indicted for the Culpepper robbery | Indictment for Culpepper robbery was not attached to the PCR record. | Indictments were read at the plea and exist in trial record; absence in PCR docs does not prove nonexistence. | no merit; record supports indictment existence |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 2 So.3d 747 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (one-judgment rule applies to PCR; separate motions for separate judgments)
- Mitchener v. State, 964 So.2d 1188 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (evidence requirements for ineffective-assistance claims in PCR)
- Scarborough v. State, 956 So.2d 382 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (accessory liability supports capital-murder conviction in robbery context)
- Boddie v. State, 875 So.2d 180 (Miss.2004) (record proper to review factual basis for guilty plea)
- Reynolds v. State, 521 So.2d 914 (Miss.1988) (fActual basis required for guilty plea)
- Gardner v. State, 531 So.2d 805 (Miss.1988) (plea voluntariness assessment factors in plea colloquy)