Wilson v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 326
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wilson pled guilty to automobile burglary in 1994 and was sentenced to five years suspended with probation; later probation violations led to revocation and confinement related to that conviction.
- In 1999 Wilson pled guilty to two bank robberies; in 2004 he was released, then convicted of bank robbery in Warren County and sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole, based in part on the 1994 and 1999 convictions.
- In 2007 Wilson filed a PCR motion alleging ineffective assistance related to the 1994 automobile-burglary conviction; the circuit court dismissed as time-barred, and this Court held the motion time-barred and lacking standing since Wilson was no longer in custody for that conviction.
- On November 5, 2009 Wilson filed a 'Motion to Amend Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis' seeking to challenge the 1994 conviction, acknowledging he could not proceed under PCR because he was not in custody.
- Mississippi law repealed coram nobis and abolished related writs, requiring relief to be sought by PCR; Wilson asked the court to treat his motion as a PCR motion, arguing issues with the guilty plea and evidence of intent.
- The court ultimately held the circuit court should have construed the motion as a PCR motion, but Wilson lacked standing to challenge the 1994 conviction because he was not in custody at the time of filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Wilson's motion be treated as PCR? | Wilson contends the motion should be construed as PCR under §99-39-3(1). | State contends coram nobis abolished; the proper vehicle is PCR, but standing issues remain separate. | Yes; motion should be construed as a PCR motion. |
| Does Wilson have standing to pursue PCR for the 1994 conviction? | Wilson argues he is entitled to relief despite timing because the filing relates to the 1994 basis for his habitual-offender status. | State asserts lack of custody defeats standing under §99-39-5(1). | No; Wilson lacks standing because he was no longer in custody for the 1994 conviction when filing. |
| Does standing defeat consideration of ineffective-assistance and involuntary-plea claims? | Wilson impliedly argues those merits should be reached notwithstanding standing. | State maintains merits are moot if standing is lacking. | Merits not reached; dismissal affirmed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (clear-error standard; de novo for questions of law)
- Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1999) (de novo review for questions of law; factual findings deferential)
- Smith v. State, 29 So.3d 126 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (common-law writs construed as PCR motions post-1990 reforms)
- Morris v. State, 918 So.2d 807 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (coram nobis treated as PCR motion)
- Graves v. State, 822 So.2d 1089 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (standing to file post-conviction relief limitations)