Stovall v. State
Docket Number: | 2003-CP-00349-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-18-2004 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Section 99-39-5(2) - Double jeopardy - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-04-2003 Appealed from: Copiah County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: PETITION DENIED District Attorney: Alexander C. Martin Case Number: 2003-0052 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Tyrone Stovall |
PRO SE |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN |
|
Synopsis provided by: If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Section 99-39-5(2) - Double jeopardy - Evidentiary hearing |
Summary of the Facts: | Tyrone Stovall entered guilty pleas to one charge of armed robbery and one charge of conspiracy to commit robbery. He was sentenced to a term of ten years for the armed robbery charge and a term of five years for the conspiracy charge, sentences to run concurrently. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 99-39-5(2) provides that a prisoner under sentence of a court of record may seek post-conviction collateral relief for up to three years from the date the judgment of conviction is entered. The three-year limitation period expired more than a year before Stovall filed his petition for relief. However, Stovall argues that the time bar should not apply because the errors he claims affect his fundamental constitutional rights. The mere assertion of a constitutional right violation is not sufficient to overcome the time bar. There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived. With regard to his double jeopardy claim, actual robbery requires the establishment of several different facts than the agreement to commit the act. With regard to his claim that his right to due process of law was compromised by the failure of the court accepting his guilty pleas to enter separate judgments and orders as required by statute, the order and judgment recited both counts of the indictment, found Stovall guilty of each one, and imposed separate sentences for each of the offenses. With regard to his claim that the court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing so that he could have the opportunity to develop facts to support his claims, the errors claimed by Stovall are questions of law, not fact. There is no factual evidence which could be developed during a hearing that would in any way alter the outcome of this claim. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court