Robert A. Maxwell v. State of Mississippi
216 So. 3d 416
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Maxwell was indicted for capital murder in Lincoln County; the indictment was later amended to murder and the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter on October 29, 2008.
- After conviction but before sentencing, the State moved to amend the indictment to designate Maxwell as a habitual offender; the court granted the amendment and sentenced him to 20 years, day-for-day, with no parole or reduction, plus a $10,000 fine and restitution.
- Maxwell’s pro se direct appeal was dismissed as untimely in November 2010; mandate issued December 2010.
- Maxwell sought leave to proceed under the UPCCRA in 2015; the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed his application without prejudice to file in trial court; Maxwell then filed a PCCR petition in circuit court.
- The circuit court granted Maxwell leave to file an out-of-time appeal, finding the delay was not his fault; the State appealed to this Court asserting procedural bar and other arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maxwell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly granted leave for an out-of-time appeal under the UPCCRA | Maxwell argued his counsel failed to inform him of his right to appeal, so an out-of-time appeal is warranted | State argued Maxwell’s PCCR was time-barred because it was filed more than three years after his direct appeal was ruled upon | Court treated the matter as an out-of-time appeal granted under the UPCCRA and proceeded to consider merits/time-bar issue |
| Whether Gowdy v. State invalidates post-conviction amendment to add habitual-offender status and thus requires relief | Maxwell argued Gowdy should apply retroactively, making the post-verdict amendment an unfair surprise and requiring reversal/resentencing | State argued Gowdy does not apply retroactively to cases final before Gowdy’s mandate; thus it cannot aid Maxwell | Court held Gowdy does not apply retroactively to Maxwell’s case (final before Gowdy mandate), so it is not an intervening decision and provides no relief |
| Whether the amendment to charge habitual offender after conviction violated defendant’s rights under URCCC 7.09 | Maxwell contended amendment was unfair surprise and deprived fair opportunity to defend habitual status | State maintained amendment was permissible under the law as applied at the time of finality | Court affirmed conviction and sentence; found no reversible error given non-retroactivity of Gowdy |
| Whether procedural-bar exceptions relieve Maxwell’s untimely PCCR | Maxwell relied on exigent/ intervening-law exception (Gowdy) to avoid time-bar | State maintained no qualifying intervening decision exists and PCCR was untimely | Court found no applicable exception and affirmed judgment on merits via non-retroactivity analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Gowdy v. State, 56 So. 3d 540 (Miss. 2010) (holding post-conviction amendment to add habitual-offender status can be an unfair surprise and vacating sentence)
- Carr v. State, 178 So. 3d 320 (Miss. 2015) (clarifying that Gowdy’s rule does not apply retroactively to cases final before Gowdy’s mandate)
- Dorsey v. State, 986 So. 2d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (trial court authority to grant out-of-time appeals under UPCCRA)
- Martin v. State, 556 So. 2d 357 (Miss. 1990) (procedural requirements for invoking post-conviction relief in the Supreme Court)