Mangum v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01167-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-01167-COA ; 2009-CT-01167-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-09-2010 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Sufficiency of indictment Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-02-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: W. SWAN YERGER Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 251-09-471 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Gerald Mangum |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER | ||
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 - Sufficiency of indictment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gerald Mangum pled guilty to murder in 1981 and was sentenced to life. Mangum filed a motion for post-conviction relief with the trial court at some point after the entry of his guilty plea and sentencing for murder, and it was denied on January 5, 1988. The trial court’s denial was affirmed on appeal. Mangum filed another motion in connection with his murder conviction and sentence in which he sought post-conviction relief with the trial court on November 12, 1998. The court dismissed the motion. On March 29, 2004, Mangum filed a third motion for post-conviction relief with the trial court which was also dismissed. Mangum did not appeal the trial court’s dismissal of either his second or third motions for post-conviction relief. On September 24, 2007, Mangum filed a fourth motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mangum argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because he alleges his 1980 indictment failed to state the essential elements of the crime of murder. It would appear at first blush that Mangum’s motion should be barred based upon the Legislature’s ability to set reasonable limitations upon post-conviction proceedings, the tardiness of Mangum’s motion, and the fact that it is a successive writ three times over. However, a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment is not waivable and is excepted from the Act’s procedural bars as it infringes upon a defendant’s right to due process. An indictment must contain all the essential elements of the crime charged in order for a defendant to be properly convicted. The essential elements of the crime of murder are that the defendant killed the victim; without authority of law; and with deliberate design to effect his death. Mangum argues that his indictment was insufficient as it excluded an essential element of the crime of murder. Mangum claims that it should have also included the phrase, “not in necessary self-defense.” Mangum’s indictment excludes not only the phrase “not in necessary self-defense” but also “without authority of law,” an identified essential element of the crime of murder. However, the Supreme Court has held that the word ‘unlawfully’ and the phrase ‘without authority of law’ are interchangeable. Also, the Supreme Court has noted that “unlawful” is defined as “not authorized or justified by law.” Hence, the phrase “not in necessary self-defense” is encompassed in the word “unlawful.” Therefore, Mangum’s indictment was legally sufficient as it contained the word “unlawfully.” |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
