225 So. 3d 1258
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- In December 2006 William S. Ashwell waived indictment and pled guilty to burglary of an inhabited dwelling and escape by bills of information; separate guilty-plea petitions were filed and the trial court accepted both pleas.
- The court sentenced Ashwell to 15 years for burglary (with conditional suspension and placement in ISP contingent on program completion) and 5 concurrent years for escape; later amended the burglary order when Ashwell completed prerequisites and placed him into ISP and post-release supervision.
- Ashwell violated post-release supervision; revocation proceedings occurred after he waived revocation hearings.
- In August 2013 Ashwell filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) motion claiming the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the criminal dockets did not contain filed bills of information for the 2006 pleas.
- The State conceded no bills of information were in the docket but submitted prosecutor affidavit, the waivers, guilty-plea petitions, and transcript excerpts showing the parties and court proceeded as if bills of information existed; the circuit court denied PCR and Ashwell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether absence of a filed bill of information automatically voids convictions | Ashwell: No bill of information was filed in the docket, so trial court lacked jurisdiction and convictions must be vacated | State: Though not filed in the docket, waivers, guilty-plea petitions, transcript, and prosecutor affidavit show a bill of information existed and court acquired jurisdiction | Court: No automatic reversal; trial court properly found a bill existed based on waiver, petitions, transcript, and affidavit; PCR denial affirmed |
| Whether plea was involuntary because waiver omitted offense date | Ashwell: Omission of the date made the waiver and plea involuntary | State: Plea and waiver issues were waived by pleading guilty and by failure to timely raise defect | Court: Claim is procedurally barred; waiver and guilty plea forfeited the challenge |
| Applicability to escape conviction (consolidated appeal) | Ashwell: Same defect (no filed bill) invalidates escape plea | State: Same evidence shows a bill of information existed for escape; procedural bars apply | Court: Same analysis applies; circuit court discretion to find bill existed; claim barred where applicable |
| Standard for relief on PCR factual findings | Ashwell: Circuit court erred in relying on other documents to infer a bill existed | State: Court may consider surrounding documents and affidavits; appellant bears burden by preponderance | Court: Appellate review defers to circuit court on factual findings absent clear error; no clear error here |
Key Cases Cited
- Edmondson v. State, 17 So. 3d 591 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for PCR denial)
- Wilkerson v. State, 89 So. 3d 610 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (burden to prove entitlement to PCR relief)
- Jefferson v. State, 556 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1989) (guilty plea does not waive subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Rhodes v. State, 335 So. 2d 907 (Miss. 1976) (court may acquire jurisdiction when accused is arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by that court)
- Berry v. State, 19 So. 3d 137 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (properly executed waiver of indictment vests trial court with authority over felony)
- State v. Hart, 80 So. 3d 25 (La. Ct. App. 2011) (missing bill of information may be harmless where defendant waived formal reading and was aware of charges)
- Black v. State, 806 So. 2d 1162 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (procedural waiver of defects in charging documents by pleading guilty)
- Kelly v. State, 797 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. 2001) (defective charging document claims waived if not raised within statutory time)
- Blount v. State, 126 So. 3d 927 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (separate PCR required for each conviction)
- Ivory v. State, 999 So. 2d 420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (limitations on suspending portion of sentence conditioned on future events)
- Johnson v. State, 77 So. 3d 1152 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (discussion of limits on deferring suspension of sentence)
