Williams v. State
2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 313
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Williams Jr. was convicted of incest on Nov. 2, 2010 and sentenced to 10 years in MDOC with 7 years to serve, 3 suspended, and 5 years post-release supervision.
- On Dec. 1, 2010, Williams filed JNOV or new-trial motions, which the circuit court denied.
- The Mississippi appellate court remands for resentencing due to an illegal sentence, affirming all other issues.
- Williams and Sias, his daughter, had a May 6, 2010 encounter; Williams admitted to sex with Sias in his testimony, while Sias claimed rape; Sias underwent a forensic sexual-assault examination.
- The investigation and interviews included Williams’s statements denying sex initially, then admitting to sex in a later interview; DNA and forensic evidence were introduced at trial.
- The court affirmed incest conviction but held Williams’s sentence exceeded the statutory maximum when considering post-release supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claims | Williams asserts multiple lapses by counsel affected trial. | Counsel's conduct fell within reasonable trial strategy; some claims are unsupported by record. | Without merit; no prejudice shown. |
| Directed verdict/JNOV challenge | Evidence was insufficient to sustain incest conviction. | Evidence shows Williams knew Sias was his daughter and had sex with her; sufficient to convict. | Sufficiency supports conviction; no error. |
| Motion for a new trial (weight of the evidence) | Verdict against the weight of the evidence. | Verdict not against the weight; evidence supports it. | No abuse of discretion; weight-of-evidence standard not met. |
| Illegal sentence | Seven years’ incarceration plus five years post-release supervision exceed the ten-year maximum for incest. | Statutory scheme allowed combined term; error not recognized. | Sentence illegal; remanded for resentencing. |
| Jury instruction D-12 on incest elements | D-12 should have been given to track statute. | Elements adequately covered by S-2; D-12 unnecessary. | No error; elements adequately addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeton v. State, 549 So.2d 960 (Miss. 1989) (incest elements focus on defendant's knowledge/intent)
- Davis v. State, 743 So.2d 326 (Miss. 1999) (counsel not required to file frivolous suppression motions)
- Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (instructions following statute language often sufficient)
- Bailey v. State, 78 So.3d 308 (Miss. 2012) (review of jury instructions as a whole; isolated sufficiency not fatal)