Catchings v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00286-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-00286-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2010 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Reversed and remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - Successive writ Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-29-2008 Appealed from: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 16,581 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | RODERIC C. CATCHINGS |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
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 - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - Successive writ |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roderic Catchings pled guilty to three counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. The circuit court sentenced Catchings to twenty years on the aggravated assault charge and thirty-five year terms on each armed robbery charge, with ten years suspended and all the sentences to run concurrently. Catchings filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court ultimately found that Catchings’s guilty plea was involuntary. It then offered Catchings a choice: he could elect to be resentenced, or he could withdraw his guilty plea entirely and face trial. The circuit court’s offer was that Catchings would be sentenced to thirty-five years on the each of the armed robbery charges with eighteen years to serve, day for day, with seventeen years suspended. The circuit court stated that this was its estimate of the actual time Catchings would have served if his mistaken understanding of the previous sentence had been accurate. The offer also provided that Catchings would receive the same twenty-year sentence for aggravated assault; the conspiracy count would be retired to the file; and all the sentences would run concurrently. Catchings accepted the court’s offer, and the circuit court resentenced him as promised. Catchings filed a second motion for post-conviction relief which was dismissed as a successive writ. Catchings appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appeal The State argues that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Catchings failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the entry of the trial court’s order dismissing his motion for post-conviction relief, as required by M.R.A.P. 4(a). The record indicates that the circuit court filed an order on December 19, 2008, dismissing Catchings’s motion. It then filed a second order to a slightly different effect on December 29, 2008. Catchings’s appeal was taken from the second order and was filed on February 5, 2009. In close cases such as this one, the burden is on the State to prove that a prisoner has failed to comply with Rule 4(a) in light of the extra time that may be allowed by the mailbox rule. The State has wholly failed to meet its burden in this case. Issue 2: Successive writ Catchings argues that the successive writ bar does not apply because his second motion for post-conviction relief was taken from a separate and distinct conviction and sentence that followed the circuit court’s granting of his first motion for post-conviction relief. Catchings’s first motion for post-conviction relief alleged that his prior guilty plea was involuntary. The circuit court found in his favor and granted the motion. While the circuit court purported only to resentence Catchings, the effect of finding a guilty plea involuntary is to vacate both the guilty plea and the sentence; the court could not set aside the sentence alone. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in dismissing Catchings’s motion for post-conviction relief as successive-writ barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
