Lambert v. State
| Docket Number: | 1999-CA-00395-SCT Linked Case(s): 1999-CA-00395-SCT ; 1999-CA-00395-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2006 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Section 99-39-5(2) - Intervening decision Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Diaz, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-30-1999 Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court Judge: William F. Coleman Disposition: Lambert was convicted of simple murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant filed a petition for PCR and the trial court refused to recognize Berryhill as an intervening decision, and it denied Lambert’s petition as time-barred. District Attorney: Eddie H. Bowen Case Number: 2299 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Gary Dean Lambert |
KRISTY L. BENNETT, JOE M. RAGLAND |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
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 - Section 99-39-5(2) - Intervening decision |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gary Lambert was convicted of simple murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Lambert filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which was denied as time-barred. With the assistance of counsel, Lambert filed another petition for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court granted Lambert’s motion and allowed him to proceed in the trial court with his application for post-conviction relief. The trial court denied Lambert’s petition as time-barred. Lambert appealed, and the Supreme Court remanded Lambert’s case to the trial court for DNA testing. The DNA analysis showed Lambert was the source of the pubic hairs found in the victim’s larynx. Lambert filed another petition for post-conviction relief. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The three-year statute of limitations found in section 99-39-5(2) does not bar post-conviction relief where the prisoner can demonstrate there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence. Lambert argues that the decision in State v. Berryhill, 703 So. 2d 250 (Miss. 1997) is an intervening decision that would have adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence. In Berryhill, the Court considered whether a capital murder indictment predicated upon the underlying crime of burglary must specifically disclose the crime the defendant intended to commit after breaking and entering the dwelling. The Court held that such capital murder indictments must contain an allegation of the specific criminal intent that constitutes an element of the burglary. The trial court in this case found that the Berryhill’s holding that capital murder indictments predicated on burglary must specify the underlying offense could not have actually adversely affected Lambert’s case because Lambert was never convicted of capital murder. He was found guilty of simple murder, a conviction unrelated to the burglary charge, regardless of the underlying intended crime. Because Berryhill does not require the reversal of a conviction or sentence obtained under the non-capital portion of an indictment, it is not an intervening decision that would have actually adversely affected the outcome of Lambert’s conviction or sentence. Lambert argues, without explanation, that he did not know the State would attempt to show he committed a sexual battery. He argues that he would have moved to exclude certain evidence of the sexual battery, but he never describes which evidence would have been excluded in a prosecution for simple murder. Lambert argues that because his indictment did not inform him that the underlying intended crime was sexual battery, his trial was inherently unfair. However, in order to prevail on his petition for post-conviction relief, Lambert must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was prejudiced by evidence that should have been excluded in a simple murder trial. Lambert points to no such evidence. Because Lambert has not established any exception to the three-year statute of limitations for his post-conviction relief petition, the trial court correctly denied that petition as time-barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
