Williams v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00458-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00458-COA ; 2011-CT-00458-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2012 Opinion Author: Russell, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief -Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 4(h) - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Evidentiary hearing - Miminum sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Concurs in Result Only: Irving, P.J., Concurs in Result Only Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-27-2009 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: L. Breland Hilburn Disposition: MOTION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 251-09-732-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Tytus Williams a/k/a Tytus D. Williams |
IMHOTEP ALKEBU-LAN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 -Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) - M.R.A.P. 4(h) - M.R.A.P. 2(c) - Evidentiary hearing - Miminum sentence - Ineffective assistance of counsel |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tytus Williams pled guilty to manslaughter and armed robbery. Williams received a twenty-year sentence for the manslaughter conviction and a twenty-year sentence for the armed-robbery conviction. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. After filing a motion for an out-of-time appeal, Williams filed an appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Timeliness of appeal M.R.A.P. 4(a) provides that an appeal shall be filed within thirty days of the date of entry of the judgement being appealed from. Rule 4(h) gives the trial court the authority to re-open the time for an appeal in the event that a party did not receive notice of the entry of judgment. However, a circuit court does not have the authority to grant an out-of-time appeal later than 180 days after the entry of judgment. In this case, the circuit court lacked the authority to grant Williams’s motion for an out-of-time appeal because Williams’s motion was filed more than 180 days after the denial of his PCR motion. However, M.R.A.P. 2(c) allows the Court to suspend the thirty-day requirement of Rule 4(a) for good cause shown. Because Williams did not receive a copy of the order denying his PCR motion through no fault of his own, the Rule 4(a) requirements are suspended in the interest of justice. Issue 2: Evidentiary hearing Williams argues that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. If the factual basis for relief is established solely by uncorroborated assertions of the movant and those assertions are contradicted by the face of the record, the court may dismiss the motion without a hearing. Williams argues that by attaching the affidavit of his father to his PCR motion, he raised a claim sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. However, Williams’s claims were contradicted by his previously sworn statements in the record. His father’s affidavit merely provided support but offered no substantiation for Williams’s assertions. The affidavit merely repeated Williams’s assertions in his PCR motion, which were contradicted by his statements in the record. Issue 3: Minimum sentence Williams argues that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion without informing him of the minimum sentence for manslaughter. However, automatic invalidation of a guilty plea where the defendant was not informed of the minimum penalty is no longer the rule in Mississippi. The record shows that Williams acknowledged the maximum twenty-year sentence for manslaughter, the minimum and maximum sentences for armed robbery, and the twenty-year recommended sentences by the State. While Williams may have hoped for an opportunity to plead guilty to aiding and abetting, the record does not provide any basis for any such expectation. Instead, Williams admitted that he was guilty of murder and armed robbery. Thus, any error in failing to advise Williams of the minimum sentence for manslaughter was harmless. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel Williams argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney allegedly pressured him to plead guilty to both charges; misled him into thinking he was pleading guilty to aiding and abetting, with a five-year sentence, rather than manslaughter; and did not inform him that by pleading guilty to armed robbery, he was waiving an indictment by a grand jury. Williams testified under oath at his plea hearing that he was satisfied with the services provided by his attorney and has failed to present any evidence to support his claim that his prior sworn statements regarding his satisfaction with his attorney should be disregarded. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
