Ryals v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00839-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-00839-COA ; 2009-CT-00839-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-01-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Irving, J. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-30-2009 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Lisa P. Dodson Disposition: DISMISSED MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE Case Number: CI08-0119 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ricky Ryals a/k/a Ricky B. Ryals |
RICKY RYALS (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 - Successive writ |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ricky Ryals filed a pro se motion to vacate and set aside his conviction of capital murder and sentence. The court dismissed Ryals’s motion as a successive writ and as time-barred. Ryals appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in summarily dismissing Ryals’s motion for post-conviction relief. The record indicates that Ryals filed his first motion for post-conviction relief in 2001. In his first motion for post-conviction relief, Ryals alleged that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, his guilty plea was not voluntarily and intelligently entered, and he received ineffective assistance from counsel. Ryals’s current motion for post-conviction relief is barred as a successive writ, because his previous motion for post-conviction relief raised these same arguments. Ryals raises three additional issues in his second motion for post-conviction relief that were not raised in his first motion for post-conviction relief. However, the three new issues do not fall within the purview of the grounds for post-conviction relief, and they could have been raised in Ryals’s first motion for post-conviction relief. Thus, Ryals is procedurally barred from raising them now. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
