King v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CP-02005-COA
Linked Case(s): 2008-CA-02005-COA ; 2005-CT-02005-SCT ; 2002-KA-02005-COA ; 2010-CA-02005-SCT ; 2010-CA-02005-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-21-2006
Opinion Author: Barnes, J.
Holding: Affirmed and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ - Time bar
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2005
Appealed from: Coahoma County Circuit Court
Judge: Larry O. Lewis
Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
Case Number: 14-CI-99-0068

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Will King




WILL KING (PRO SE)



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO  

    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 - Time bar

    Summary of the Facts: Will King pled guilty to five counts of violating the controlled substance laws. He was sentenced to fifteen years for each count. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. The denial was affirmed on appeal. King attempted to file a “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence,” which was denied. He appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: King filed the “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence” over seven years after the entry of his guilty plea. The motion is not only procedurally barred by the three-year statute of limitations, but is also barred as a successive writ. In the sentencing orders, Counts III and IV erroneously reflect that King pled guilty to “sale” of a controlled substance instead of “possession with intent to sell” a controlled substance. The case is remanded for the court to correct the charges of the sentencing orders on Counts III and IV to reflect the correct charges as contained in King’s indictment and plea petition: “possession with intent to sell,”and not “sale” on Counts III and IV.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court