White v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01574-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-12-2011 Opinion Author: Maxwell, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Successive writ - Time bar Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: PCR; Dismissal Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-18-2009 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Disposition: Motion for Post-Conviction Relief Dismissed Case Number: 2008-0200-R |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mikel White |
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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Successive writ - Time bar |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1981, the Madison County Circuit Court sentenced Mikel White to life imprisonment after a jury found him guilty of capital murder. White later pled guilty to several other crimes. In 2008, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the circuit court dismissed as a successive writ. White appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | White argues that his attorney was ineffective. White’s present PCR motion is a successive writ because it is at least his fourth PCR motion. He has also alleged in a prior PCR motion the exact same issue asserted in this appeal—ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, because he is challenging a 1981 conviction, his PCR motion was filed well outside the three-year statute of limitations. The only statutory exception asserted by White is one of newly discovered evidence. White argues he was under the “strong domination” of another person during the commission of his crimes. And his claim centers on the allegation that he has “new” evidence to prove it. The alleged “new” evidence includes the testimony of family members. However, he neither attached their supporting affidavits to his PCR motion, nor does he explain how the “new” evidence was not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, or how it would be practically conclusive of his innocence. Thus, this claim is barred. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
