Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CP-00040-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CT-00040-SCT ; 2011-CP-00040-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-03-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Successive writ - Habitual offender status - Amendment to indictment - URCCC 7.09 - Permission to file - Section 99-39-7 - Frivolous pleading Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-30-2010 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: 2010-0282P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Willie Lee Williams a/k/a Black Bill |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT |
|
|
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 - Habitual offender status - Amendment to indictment - URCCC 7.09 - Permission to file - Section 99-39-7 - Frivolous pleading |
| Summary of the Facts: | Willie Williams was convicted of the sale or transfer of a controlled substance within 1,500 feet of a school and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 120 years. Williams appealed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Williams’s conviction. However, the Court found there was insufficient evidence that the underlying drug transaction occurred within 1,500 feet of a school. The Court reversed the circuit court’s judgment in part and remanded Williams’s case for resentencing. On remand, the circuit court sentenced Williams to sixty years. Approximately nine years later, Williams filed a motion for post-conviction relief. According to Williams, the circuit court erred when it allowed the prosecution to amend the indictment to charge him as a habitual offender. Williams reasoned that, by extension, he had been illegally convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender. The circuit court found that Williams’s motion was time barred, procedurally barred because he failed to obtain the Supreme Court’s leave to file his motion, and further barred by the prohibition against successive writs. Williams appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Supreme Court rendered its decision on Williams’s direct appeal on June 28, 2001. Williams filed his most recent PCR motion approximately ten years later. It follows that Williams’s recent PCR motion is time-barred. Excepted from the time bar are claims that there has been an intervening decision that would have adversely affected the outcome of the sentence; and there is newly discovered evidence (that was not reasonably discoverable at trial) which would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Additionally, the three-year statute of limitations is waived when a fundamental constitutional right is implicated. Williams does not claim any portion of his sentence is illegal other than his sentence as a habitual offender under section 99-19-81. Amendments to indictments to charge habitual-offender status are allowed. Such amendments are not substantive amendments and are, therefore, allowed by URCCC 7.09. Thus, Williams has failed to demonstrate that the time bar does not apply. Williams’s PCR motion is barred for yet another reason. Section 99-39-7 provides that before a movant in Williams’s circumstance may file a PCR motion in the circuit court, he must first seek and obtain permission to do so from the Supreme Court. Because Williams failed to obtain permission from the Supreme Court before he filed his most recent PCR motion, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. Finally, this is Williams’ fifth motion for post-conviction relief. Thus, it is barred as a successive writ. If Williams persists in filing facially frivolous post-conviction pleadings, as an appropriate sanction, a circuit court judge may well be justified in denying Williams’s request for in forma pauperis status. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
