Adams v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-01761-COA
Linked Case(s): 2005-CP-01761-COA ; 2005-CT-01761-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-06-2007
Opinion Author: IRVING, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Interpretation of filing - Section 99-39-9(4) - Forfeiture of earned time - Recusal of judge
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-18-2005
Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts
Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
Case Number: 05-CV-117(R)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: LATRELL DEWAYNE ADAMS A/K/A SCOTT TREMAYNE BLACK




LATRELL DEWAYNE ADAMS (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF  

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 - Interpretation of filing - Section 99-39-9(4) - Forfeiture of earned time - Recusal of judge

Summary of the Facts: Latrell Adams indicted twice as a habitual offender for two separate burglary charges. The second indictment included not only a count for burglary, but also a count for attempted burglary. Adams was convicted of the first burglary charge and was sentenced to seven years as a habitual offender. Adams entered a guilty plea to the second burglary charge. As part of his plea, Adams agreed to withdraw his appeal to the first conviction. The State recommended that he be given a sentence of seven years and also agreed to pass an attempted burglary charge to the files. The court adopted the State’s recommendation. Adams filed a “Notice of Post-Conviction Collateral Relief.” The court denied post-conviction relief and ordered the forfeiture of sixty days of Adams’ earned time. Adams appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of filing Adams argues that the court erred in interpreting his “Notice” as a motion for post-conviction relief. There is no procedure for “notice” of post-conviction relief. The court did not err in interpreting Adams’ filing as a motion for post-conviction relief, as the filing clearly stated that the document was a motion, and that Adams was moving for post-conviction relief. Adams also argues that the court erred in not returning his filing to him. Section 99-39-9(4), while stating that the motion “shall” be returned to the prisoner, is clear that the determination of whether to return a motion is left to the discretion of the trial court. Clearly, a court is not always required to return a post-conviction relief motion that fails to comply with statutory requirements. It plainly appeared from the face of Adams’ motion that he was not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the court was not required to send Adams’ motion back. Issue 2: Forfeiture of earned time Adams argues that the court erred in ordering the forfeiture of sixty days of earned time. Adams is serving his sentence day-for-day as a habitual offender. Therefore, Adams cannot accrue earned time and cannot be prejudiced by the forfeiture of his non-existent earned time. Issue 3: Recusal of judge Adams argues that the court erred in declining to recuse. Adams did not request the judge’s recusal prior to the denial of Adams’ motion for post-conviction relief. Therefore, the denial of the recusal motion as moot was clearly proper. In addition, Adams offers no evidence in support of his contention other than the court’s statement that a motion filed by Adams would be a “sham.” The court was merely confirming that there was absolutely no reason not to accept Adams’ guilty plea.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court