Williams v. State
Docket Number: | 2003-CP-00650-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-04-2004 Opinion Author: Lee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Section 99-39-5(2) Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Southwick, P.JJ., Thomas, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2003 Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CV02-322(G)L |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Lazente Carnell Williams |
PRO SE |
||
Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
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) |
Summary of the Facts: | Lazente Williams pled guilty to two counts of burglary. He was sentenced to five years on each burglary count, to run concurrently, with three years of each sentence suspended. He later pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine and was sentenced to three years, with one year suspended. He filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis which the court treated as a motion for post-conviction relief and dismissed as time-barred. Williams appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 99-39-5(2) requires that a motion for post-conviction relief be made within three years after entry of the judgment of conviction. As Williams entered his guilty pleas on February 11 and March 11 of 1998, and his motion for relief was filed more than three years later, his motion was properly dismissed as time-barred. In addition, his pleas were voluntary as the record reflects that Williams was informed of the charges against him and the possible sentence. Nor was Williams denied effective assistance of counsel since he was informed of the consequences of his guilty plea. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court