Smith v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01088-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CP-01088-COA ; 2008-CT-01088-SCT ; 2008-CP-01088-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-10-2009 Opinion Author: MAXWELL, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Amendment of indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Time bar Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-09-2008 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: PETITIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: A2401-1999-426 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WILLIE RUDOLPH SMITH |
WILLIE RUDOLPH SMITH (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS | ||
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 - Amendment of indictment - Voluntariness of plea - Time bar |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Smith pled guilty to transfer of a controlled substance. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to fifteen years. In 1999, he filed an initial petition for post-conviction relief. The circuit court neglected to rule on his initial petition, and Smith failed to secure a final judgment on this PCR petition. Smith filed a second PCR petition in 2007, which raised substantially the same issues as his first. The trial court considered both of Smith’s PCR petitions and denied Smith’s original PCR petition on the merits, and denied Smith’s second PCR petition as both time-barred and without merit. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Amendment of indictment Smith argued that his indictment was improperly amended on the day he entered his guilty plea to reflect his habitual-offender status. The only requirement for amending an indictment to charge a defendant as a habitual offender is that the defendant be afforded a fair opportunity to present a defense and that he not be unfairly surprised. Smith was given ample opportunity to present defenses and was not surprised by the State’s decision to seek enhanced penalties based on his habitual-offender status. Smith also argues his indictment was defective because it contained clerical errors concerning his name, social security number, and date of birth. Defects in indictments resulting from clerical errors in names, dates of birth, and social security numbers are non-jurisdictional. Because Smith entered a guilty plea, he waived any, and all, potential non-jurisdictional defects. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Smith argues his plea was not voluntarily entered because his counsel informed him for the first time, in open court, that as a habitual offender he faced the possibility of a life sentence. A plea is voluntary and intelligent when the defendant is informed of the charges against him and the consequences of his plea. The record contradicts Smith's claim. Smith repeatedly sought to obtain counsel who would assure him the State would not seek enhanced penalties, which indicates he was aware of the State’s authority to proceed under the habitual-offender statute. Issue 3: Time bar Smith's second petition was time barred. The statute of limitations expired in 2001, and Smith filed his second PCR petition in 2007, more than six years too late. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
