Stokes v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 442
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Stokes faced a six-count indictment and pled guilty to two charges: exploitation of a child and gratification of lust.
- The Madison County Circuit Court sentenced him to 15 years for one charge and 10 years (with 5 suspended, 5 to serve, and 5 on post-release supervision) for the other, with sentences running consecutively.
- On January 25, 2010, Stokes filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging involuntary pleas, ineffective assistance, newly discovered evidence, and misrepresentation/duress.
- The circuit court denied post-conviction relief on March 5, 2010; Stokes appealed the denial.
- Stokes argued the appeal was untimely, that the circuit court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing, that an interpreter should have been appointed at the guilty plea, and that he had ineffective assistance of counsel; the State contended the appeal was untimely.
- The court ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of timeliness, holding no timely notice of appeal was filed under the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Stokes's notice of appeal timely? | Stokes contends timely filing via prison mailbox rule. | State contends no timely filing occurred. | Appeal dismissed for untimeliness. |
| Does prison-mailbox rule toll the filing deadline? | Delivery to ILAP infirmary timed as filing date. | No evidence delivery on or before deadline; rule inapplicable. | Rule does not toll; no timely delivery shown. |
| May Rule 4(a) deadline be suspended in this case? | Rule 2(c) authority allows suspension for justice. | No good cause shown; suspension not warranted. | No suspension; timely appeal not shown. |
| Did the court err in addressing the post-conviction relief appeal without an evidentiary hearing? | Issues of involuntary plea and ineffective assistance require an evidentiary hearing. | Rule 4(a) timely filing governs; dismissal appropriate. | Not reached; appeal dismissed on timeliness grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. State, 941 So. 2d 804 (Miss. 2006) (de novo review for questions of law in post-conviction relief)
- Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1999) (establishes standard for appellate review of post-conviction matters)
- Bank of Miss. v. S. Mem'l Park, Inc., 677 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1996) (standard for appellate review of lower court factual findings)
- Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219 (Miss. 2008) (timeliness and post-conviction review framework)
- Duhart v. State, 981 So.2d 1056 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (prison mailbox rule application in post-conviction context)