King v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01790-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CP-01790-COA ; 2009-CT-01790-SCT ; 2009-CT-01790-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-16-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Successive writ Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-25-2009 Appealed from: MONTGOMERY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-0020CVL |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Cedric King a/k/a Cedric Lamar King |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY | ||
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 - Successive writ |
| Summary of the Facts: | Cedric King filed a motion to vacate and set aside his convictions and sentences for armed robbery and possession of cocaine. The court treated his motion as one for post-conviction relief and denied it as time-barred and for being a successive writ. King appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In his most recent motion for post-conviction relief, King alleges that his guilty plea was involuntary. He also complains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. As in his earlier motions for post-conviction relief, King complains that he was not properly informed as to his parole eligibility before pleading guilty. All of these allegations have already been addressed in prior post-conviction proceedings. There is nothing in King’s newest motion to overcome either the successive-writ bar or the time bar. King claims that he did not learn until 2008 that he would not be eligible for parole. However, the mere fact that he learned about the law in 2008 does not constitute newly discovered evidence. Thus, the circuit court was correct in denying his motion for post-conviction relief as time-barred and as a successive writ. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
