Hughes v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CP-00892-COA
Linked Case(s): 2011-CP-00892-COA ; 2011-CT-00892-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-12-2012
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Time bar - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Russell and Fair, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: PCR

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2011
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: William A. Gowan, Jr.
Disposition: MOTIONS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED
Case Number: 05-05-033

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Robert E. Hughes a/k/a Robert Hughes a/k/a Robert Earl Hughes




PRO SE



 

Appellee: State of Mississippi OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE  

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 - Illegal sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel

Summary of the Facts: In 2006, Robert Hughes pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty-five years, with ten years suspended and fifteen years to serve, followed by three years of post-release supervision. In October 2007, Hughes filed his first PCR motion. He filed a second PCR motion on March 13, 2009, which was denied on March 31, 2009. Hughes did not appeal this order of denial. On December 13, 2010, he filed a third PCR motion. The court dismissed the motion as a successive writ, and Hughes appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Hughes argues he is entitled to relief because his guilty plea was not valid and his counsel was ineffective. Because the March 2009 denial of post-conviction relief addressed both of these claims, these issues are procedurally barred. In addition, his PCR motion is time-barred. Hughes’s 2010 motion was not filed until December 13, 2010, more than four-and-a-half years after his March 14, 2006 guilty plea. A claim of an involuntary guilty plea does not surmount the procedural bar. Hughes asserts he was given an illegal sentence because he was sentenced for armed robbery. The right to be free from an illegal sentence is a fundamental right not subject to the time-bar or res judicata. Despite pleading guilty to armed robbery, Hughes claims he was wrongly charged with this crime. Hughes suggests he is only guilty of carjacking. However, where two or more statutes govern a given course of conduct, the State may elect to proceed under either statute, so long as the accused is given fair notice of the crime charged. Hughes also claims his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. The time bar applies to post-conviction relief claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Hughes merely asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without supporting his claim with facts that would overcome the strong presumption his counsel’s performance was sufficient.


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