Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-01788-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-14-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-19-81 - Habitual offender status - Time Bar - Section 99-39-5 - Evidentiary hearing Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J. and Myers, J. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlton, J., concurs in result only with separate written opinion Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Dissenting Author : Roberts, J. Dissent Joined By : Griffis, P.J., Barnes and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, P.J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion Nature of the Case: CIVIL - 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: 251-09-395 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Antonio Williams |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL |
|
|
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 - Section 99-19-81 - Habitual offender status - Time Bar - Section 99-39-5 - Evidentiary hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 1987, Antonio Williams was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without eligibility for parole or probation. Because Williams had been previously convicted of burglary on two separate occasions, Mississippi’s habitual-offender statute was applied to his sentence. On direct appeal, Williams’s conviction was affirmed. In 2009, Williams filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the sentencing phase of his murder conviction. In support of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, Williams references his trial counsel’s failure to object to the court’s consideration of documents produced by the prosecution as proof of Williams’s two prior burglary convictions. Williams argues that both of the prior convictions are unconstitutional, also due to ineffective assistance of counsel; therefore, the court’s application of the habitual-offender statute, section 99-19-81, was illegal. Where a party to a PCR motion offers only his affidavit in support of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the claim is without merit. Here, Williams offers only his own allegations as evidence. Issue 2: Habitual offender status Williams argues that his two prior felony convictions are unconstitutional because his guilty pleas were not voluntarily and intelligently given; hence, the application of the habitual-offender statute to his sentence was unconstitutional. Williams attempts to address the voluntariness of the guilty pleas that he entered in 1982 for two separate burglary convictions. However, Williams has never challenged the validity of his guilty pleas until this appeal. Additionally, even if Williams’s claims regarding his guilty pleas were properly before the Court, the claims would be time-barred pursuant to the three-year statute of limitations set forth in section 99-39-5. Accordingly, Williams’s prior unchallenged convictions were valid at the time the trial court applied the habitual-offender statute to Williams’s sentence. Issue 3: Evidentiary hearing Williams argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on his PCR motion before denying the motion. An evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a petition for post-conviction relief are specific and conclusory. Williams’s allegations lacked any disputed information that would have necessitated a hearing. His allegations were specific and conclusory. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
