Salter v. State
2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 677
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Salter pled guilty in 2001 to four kidnappings, two armed robberies, and one burglary; sentenced to six concurrent 30-year terms plus a consecutive 7-year burglary term.
- Salter filed a first post-conviction petition in 2002 which was denied; this Court affirmed.
- In 2009 Salter filed a second post-conviction petition, which the circuit court dismissed as procedurally barred as a successive writ.
- Salter alleged his guilty plea was involuntary and that trial counsel and the court misinformed him about parole and earned time eligibility.
- The court recognized the day-for-day nature of armed-robbery sentences and held Salter was ineligible for parole or earned time release under current law.
- The court concluded Salter’s second petition was procedurally barred and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Salter's petition procedurally barred as a successive writ? | Salter argues exceptions apply to remove bars. | State contends successive-writ bar applies and no exception applies. | Yes; petition barred as successive writ with no applicable exception. |
| Do exceptions (newly discovered evidence or fundamental rights) apply to overcome the bars? | Salter relies on newly discovered evidence and fundamental-rights concepts. | State rejects both exceptions as inapplicable here. | No; neither exception applied to render petition timely or meritorious. |
| Did the claimed ineffective assistance and involuntary plea affect the merits under procedural bars? | Salter asserts these claims show a fundamental-rights issue bypassing bars. | The court held these claims are subject to procedural bars. | Merits not reached due to procedural dismissal; claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickle v. State, 942 So.2d 243 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (newly discovered evidence does not include legal-error awareness)
- Fairley v. State, 834 So.2d 704 (Miss.2003) (erroneous parole/sentencing information may require evidentiary hearing)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss.2010) (fundamental-rights exception to procedural bars)
- Kirk v. State, 798 So.2d 345 (Miss.2000) (ineffective assistance and involuntary plea subject to procedural bars)
- Wells v. State, 936 So.2d 479 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (armed robbery sentences not subject to parole or earned time release)