William Travis Lowell v. State of Mississippi
229 So. 3d 1054
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- William (Travis) Lowell pled guilty to three counts of grand larceny, one count of burglary, and one count of possession of stolen property for a May 2011 crime spree.
- Count II charged grand larceny for a riding lawnmower owned by Sidney Imes; Count V charged possession of stolen property (a bicycle) also owned by Imes.
- Lowell later filed a pro se post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion claiming double jeopardy (that the mower and bicycle constituted a single larceny), excessive/illegal restitution, an involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal de novo and treated double-jeopardy claims as fundamental but recognized guilty pleas can waive some such claims when indictments facially allege distinct offenses.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal on double jeopardy, plea voluntariness, and ineffective-assistance grounds, but reversed and rendered as to an award of $278.50 restitution that lacked any basis in the record (State conceded error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lowell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy (Counts II & V) | The mower and bicycle were stolen at the same time/place, so only one larceny occurred; possession charge duplicates larceny | Indictments facially allege two distinct offenses; guilty plea admitted to both counts and waived factual defenses | Court: Waived – indictments facially valid; claim would require facts beyond plea record, so dismissed |
| Restitution amount | Restitution (~$35,000) excessive, items recovered/insured, victims exaggerated values | Restitution based on victim-impact statements; circuit court vetted and reduced items; defendant failed to object at sentencing | Court: Waived for failure to object, except $278.50 awarded for unrelated retired cause — reversed and rendered on that item (State conceded) |
| Involuntary guilty plea (re: restitution) | Plea involuntary because Lowell did not know restitution amount and expected minimal restitution | Lowell signed plea petition acknowledging court would determine sentence; court warned of fines exceeding restitution; restitution is collateral and not required to be specifically advised | Court: Plea voluntary; awareness of potential restitution sufficient; issue without merit |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to advise about double-jeopardy defense and failed to object to restitution | Allegations are only in movant's affidavit and lack the required factual support under PCR pleading rules | Court: Dismissed — claim unsupported by evidence and insufficient under PCR statute |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (recognizing guilty pleas admit facts alleged and can waive certain defenses)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (guilty plea does not waive a facial double-jeopardy bar to prosecution)
- Willie v. State, 738 So. 2d 217 (Mississippi discussion of plea and double-jeopardy waiver)
- Davis v. State, 162 So. 3d 805 (when State may charge stealing versus receiving the same property)
- Dalton v. State, 44 So. 802 (Miss. single-larceny rule: one act may constitute a single offense)
- Powell v. State, 536 So. 2d 13 (failure to object to restitution at sentencing waives later challenge)