Williams v. State
110 So. 3d 840
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Williams pled guilty in 2009 to armed robbery and aggravated assault; sentenced to 18 years on each count, five years suspended, thirteen to serve, concurrent terms.
- First PCR motion filed February 2010 alleging speedy-trial violation, ineffective counsel, and due-process withholding of a dismissal motion.
- A motion to stay and amend under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-9 was filed in April 2010 but never ruled on.
- Second PCR motion filed May 23, 2010 challenging voluntariness of pleas and adding ineffective-assistance arguments.
- First PCR was dismissed in September 2010; the court found no basis for ineffective assistance and that speedy-trial issues had been addressed; pleas deemed valid.
- Williams appealed; this Court later addressed the second PCR in Williams I, but Williams’s second PCR remained pending; in 2011 the circuit court dismissed the second PCR; Williams appeals asserting error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCR is barred as successive writ | Williams | State | Second PCR barred; successive writ rule applies |
| Whether any statutory exception to the successive-writ bar applies | Williams | State | No merit to exceptions; no fundamental-rights exception established |
| Whether Williams's guilty pleas were involuntary due to lack of factual basis | Williams | State | Adequate factual basis existed; pleas voluntary |
| Whether Williams received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to the guilty pleas | Williams | State | Claim meritless; no showing of deficient performance causing prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 1090 (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (prior decision addressing issues in PCR-related context)
- Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for PCR dismissal; procedural bars)
- Moore v. State, 985 So.2d 365 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (law on appellate review standards)
- White v. State, 59 So.3d 633 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (exceptions to procedural bars for ineffective-counsel claims)
- Adams v. State, 954 So.2d 1051 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (procedural-bar exceptions; burden on movant)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss.2010) (constitutional-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- Chancy v. State, 938 So.2d 267 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (ineffective-assistance claims and procedural bars)
- Smith v. State, 922 So.2d 43 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (standard for overcoming procedural bars)
- Bevill v. State, 669 So.2d 14 (Miss.1996) (general discussion of PCR standards)
- Madden v. State, 991 So.2d 1231 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (indictment as factual basis for guilty plea)
- Boddie v. State, 875 So.2d 180 (Miss.2004) (defendant's admission as basis for pleas)
- Drake v. State, 823 So.2d 593 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (utilizing indictment as factual basis for plea)
- Turner v. State, 864 So.2d 288 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (methods to establish factual basis for guilty plea)
- Corley v. State, 585 So.2d 765 (Miss.1991) (record-wide inquiry into factual basis for pleas)
- Robinson v. State, 19 So.3d 140 (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (burden on movant to show exceptions to bar)