Smith v. State
118 So. 3d 180
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Smith pleaded guilty in 1973 to murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping with consecutive life and prison terms.
- In 1985, he petitioned for habeas corpus; denial affirmed, kidnapping sentence corrected on remand.
- He pursued multiple post-conviction relief (PCR) motions (1997, 1998, 2001, 2011), all dismissed as time-barred or successive-writ barred.
- The April 12, 2011 PCR motion asserted life sentence expiration, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance; circuit court dismissed as time-barred and successive-writ barred.
- On appeal, he challenges procedural bars and argues exceptions apply; the court reviews de novo on legal questions and affirms dismissal.
- The court emphasizes Smith’s prior appellate findings that pleas were voluntary and that his claims are procedurally barred under UPCCRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s PCR motion was timely under UPCCRA | Smith argues statutory exceptions may apply | State contends time-bar and successive-writ bars apply | No statutory or fundamental-rights exceptions; timely limits do not apply to this motion. |
| Whether any statutory exception to the three-year limit applies | Life expiration exception should apply | Life sentence cannot expire; expired-sentence exception inapplicable | Expired-sentence exception does not apply; life sentence does not expire. |
| Whether a fundamental-rights exception applies to surmount procedural bars | Violations of fundamental rights could excuse bars | Fundamental-rights exception requires a basis for truth of claim | No, no substantial basis shown; voluntariness of plea and prior rulings foreclose. |
| Whether involuntary-plea or ineffective-assistance claims overcome bars | Claims re: involuntary plea and ineffective assistance should be reviewed | Arguments are time-barred and precluded by precedent | Both claims remain time-barred and successive-writ barred; no relief. |
| Whether the court properly treated prior Supreme Court findings on voluntariness | Prior findings should be revisited | Prevailing Supreme Court findings control; claims barred | Prevailing findings control; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watts v. State, 97 So.3d 722 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (three-year limit and exceptions under UPCCRA)
- White v. State, 59 So.3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (annual review of time-bar and successive-writ)
- Reed v. State, 987 So.2d 1054 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (apprise issues must be separately numbered)
- Smith v. State, 730 So.2d 567 (Miss. 1998) (prior dismissal: time-barred, successive-writ barred)
- Smith v. State, 730 So.2d 568 (Miss. 1998) (pleas were voluntary; life sentence legality reviewed)
- Trotter v. State, 907 So.2d 397 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (fundamental-rights exception not for involuntary-plea)
- Cole v. State, 608 So.2d 1313 (Miss. 1992) (plea voluntariness not per se fundamental right exception)
- Moody v. State, 644 So.2d 451 (Miss. 1994) (Strickland prongs and pleading requirements)
- Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (time-bar applies to ineffective-assistance challenges)
- Bevill v. State, 669 So.2d 14 (Miss. 1996) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims)