White v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01885-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-17-2009 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Prison mailbox rule - Double jeopardy - Hearing - URCCC 8.04 - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: BARNES, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-22-2008 Appealed from: WILKINSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Lillie Blackmon Sanders Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2008-0139 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | WILLIAM HENRY WHITE A/K/A WILLIAM WHITE, JR. |
WILLIAM HENRY WHITE (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 - Prison mailbox rule - Double jeopardy - Hearing - URCCC 8.04 - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | William White entered a guilty plea to burglary of a dwelling and was sentenced to twenty-five years. White filed his motion for post-conviction collateral relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Time bar The State argues that White’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief is time-barred, because it was filed three days after the three-year statute of limitations expired. The prison mailbox rule states that a pro se prisoner's motion for post-conviction relief is delivered for filing under the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act and the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure when the prisoner delivers the papers to prison authorities for mailing. White’s motion was signed and notarized one day prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. While the notary stamp alone is insufficient proof of when the motion was presented for mailing, it is the State’s burden to prove that the prisoner’s motion was not filed timely under the prison-mailbox rule. Here, the State has provided no evidence of the date of mailing. Issue 2: Double jeopardy White argues that the circuit court’s re-sentencing amounted to double jeopardy because he was sentenced twice for the same crime. This issue is procedurally barred because it was not raised in White’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief. In addition, the claim is without merit. The circuit judge did not sentence White a second time for the same crime; instead, the circuit judge exercised her inherent authority to alter a sentence until the regular term of court expires. Issue 3: Hearing White argues that the circuit court should have conducted another hearing under URCCC 8.04 to determine the voluntariness of his guilty plea before changing his sentence. This issue is procedurally barred as it was not raised in White’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief. In addition, White did not enter a separate guilty plea for which another hearing under Rule 8.04 was necessary. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel White argues that his counsel was ineffective because counsel did nothing to assist him when he was called back to the bench for the amendment of his sentence. However, his attorney was not ineffective since this alteration of his sentence was within the inherent power of the circuit court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
