William Dwayne Salter v. State of Mississippi
184 So. 3d 944
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- William Dwayne Salter pled guilty in 2001 to armed robbery, kidnapping, and burglary and received lengthy concurrent and consecutive prison terms.
- Salter attacked his conviction/sentence through successive post-conviction-relief (PCR) petitions: first (2002) and second (2009) petitions were denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In the second petition Salter raised claims that counsel and the court misinformed him about parole/earned-time eligibility; the court held his petition was time-barred and a successive writ.
- In 2012 Salter filed a third PCR petition asserting ineffective assistance by trial and PCR counsel and argued Martinez v. Ryan created an intervening-decision exception to procedural bars.
- The trial court dismissed the third petition as time-barred, successive-writ barred, and barred by res judicata; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez creates an intervening-decision exception to overcome time/successive-writ bars | Martinez excuses default of ineffective-assistance claims where initial-review collateral counsel was absent/ineffective, so Salter's successive/time-bar should be excused | Martinez applies only to federal habeas procedure and does not alter state PCR procedural bars | Martinez does not apply to Mississippi PCR; petition remains time-barred and successive-writ barred |
| Whether an asserted fundamental-right exception (ineffective assistance/involuntary plea) overcomes procedural bars | Salter contends fundamental-rights exception applies because counsel was ineffective and plea involuntary | State: ineffective-assistance claims are subject to procedural bars; only limited "fundamental" rights survive (double jeopardy, illegal sentence, due process at sentencing, ex post facto) | No fundamental-right exception applies; claim is procedurally barred |
| Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for not raising parole-misinformation theory earlier | Salter alleges PCR counsel failed to raise a specific ineffective-assistance theory (parole misinformation) | State: no general constitutional right to PCR counsel; must plead counsel deficiency with specificity and affidavit evidence | Claim lacks the required factual specificity and affidavits; ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claim denied |
| Whether res judicata bars the third PCR petition | Salter argues claims merit review despite prior petitions | State: res judicata prevents relitigation of claims that were or should have been raised earlier | Res judicata applies; issues could and should have been raised in the first PCR, so third petition is barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (U.S. 2012) (federal habeas narrow exception for defaulted ineffective-assistance claims where initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Pickle v. State, 942 So. 2d 243 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (prisoner’s late legal realization is not newly discovered evidence)
- Cole v. State, 608 So. 2d 1313 (Miss. 1992) (state may impose reasonable time limitations on asserting constitutional claims)
- Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (Miss. 2000) (ineffective assistance and involuntary pleas are subject to procedural bars)