Becker v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00055-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-00055-COA ; 2009-CT-00055-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-25-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: The judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County denying the motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-17-2009 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: A2401-08-186 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Richard Becker a/k/a Richard Edward Becker |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY, JR. | ||
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 - Successive writ |
| Summary of the Facts: | Richard Becker pled guilty to two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to twelve years for each count, with four years suspended and four years of post-release supervision. Becker filed a motion to reconsider his sentence which the court denied. He then filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was also denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Becker argues that two of his attorneys were ineffective as Becker was mentally incompetent before and during the time of his guilty plea and the attorneys did not request a competency hearing and coerced him into pleading guilty. The trial judge properly treated Becker’s first motion as a motion to reconsider his sentence, not as a motion for post-conviction relief. The motion was filed within the term of court, and the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the motion as styled and not as a motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider on October 16, 2007. However, Becker moved to “amend” his motion to reconsider on January 22, 2008, which was several months after the end of the term of court in which Becker had been sentenced, as well as several months after the trial court had denied Becker’s original motion to reconsider. In his motion to amend, Becker raised his competency issues for the first time. The trial court should have considered the motion to amend as a motion for post-conviction relief, as the court had no jurisdiction otherwise to hear the motion. Accordingly, the current motion is barred as a successive writ. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
