Flowers v. State
| Citation | 978 So.2d 1281 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-CP-01844-COA.,2006-CP-01844-COA. |
| Parties | Edward D. FLOWERS, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Mississippi |
Edward D. Flowers, pro se.
Office of the Attorney General by John R. Henry, attorney for appellee.
Before LEE, P.J., CHANDLER and BARNES, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. Edward D. Flowers filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) in the Circuit Court of Washington County. The PCR collaterally attacked Flowers's conviction for armed robbery. Flowers argued that: (1) he was denied due process because the trial court failed to advise him of his right to appeal his sentence; (2) there was no factual basis for his guilty plea; (3) the indictment was defective because it failed to identify the judicial district; (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) he was denied due process because the State prosecuted him for the greater of the two offenses for which he was indicted. The circuit court found each of these issues to be without merit and dismissed Flowers's PCR.
¶ 2. Flowers appeals, asserting the same errors assigned in his PCR. Because the record reflects that Flowers's PCR is procedurally barred as a successive writ, we affirm the circuit court, but on different grounds.
FACTS
¶ 3. The circuit court accepted Flowers's guilty plea to armed robbery on July 29, 1999. On October 12, 1999, the circuit court sentenced Flowers to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five years suspended to be served on supervised probation. The record on appeal shows that Flowers timely filed a PCR seeking relief from this conviction; relief was denied, and Flowers appealed. This Court affirmed the denial of the PCR on January 22, 2002. The record on appeal also includes a copy of portions of a second PCR concerning the armed robbery conviction that Flowers filed on September 22, 2004.
¶ 4. Flowers filed the instant PCR on November 30, 2005. In the PCR, Flowers stated, The circuit court addressed each of Flowers's issues and found them to be without merit. The circuit court summarily dismissed Flowers's PCR pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Rev.2007). Flowers now appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 5. The circuit court may summarily dismiss a PCR "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief." Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2). On appeal, this Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR if the petitioner has failed to demonstrate "a claim procedurally alive substantially showing [the] denial of a state or federal right...." Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122(¶ 9) (Miss.1999) (quoting Myers v. State, 583 So.2d 174, 176 (Miss.1991)).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
DID THE CIRCUIT COURT ERR BY DISMISSING FLOWERS'S PCR?
¶ 6. The record reflects that the PCR that is the subject of this appeal was Flowers's third PCR attacking his armed robbery conviction. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev.2007) states that: The statute provides exceptions to the successive pleadings bar, stating:
Excepted from this prohibition is a motion filed pursuant to Section 99-19-57(2), Mississippi Code of 1972, raising the issue of the convict's supervening insanity prior to the execution of a sentence of death.... Likewise excepted from this prohibition are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.
Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).
¶ 7. Flowers's PCR does not fall within any of these statutory exceptions. Flowers did not raise the issue of his supervening insanity pending the execution of a sentence of death. Nor did he seek to demonstrate that an intervening decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence. Flowers did not assert newly discovered evidence, and he did not claim that his sentence has expired or that his probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. Therefore, Flowers's PCR was procedurally barred as a successive motion.
¶ 8. Flowers argues that the PCR was not subject to the successive pleadings bar because the State waived the defense of the successive pleadings bar by failing to raise it before the circuit court. He contends that because of the State's waiver, the circuit court could not have applied the bar, and neither can this Court on appeal. He also argues that two of his issues raise the violation of his fundamental rights, which are not subject to procedural bars. We discuss each of Flowers's contentions in turn.
¶ 9. The State's failure to raise the successive pleadings bar in no way impeded the circuit court's ability to apply the bar to Flowers's PCR. It is the role of the circuit court to conduct a facial review of the motion, any exhibits, and the prior proceedings in the case to determine whether the PCR is sufficient to survive summary dismissal. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2). Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(3) (Rev.2007), it is only if the PCR has survived summary dismissal that the circuit court "shall order the state to file an answer or other pleading." The statute clearly establishes a procedure whereby the circuit court, without input from the State, must conduct an initial evaluation of the procedural viability of the PCR. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11. This evaluation necessarily includes the circuit court's consideration of the applicability of the successive pleadings bar.
¶ 10. The supreme court has held that "[e]rrors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prohibit their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. State
... ... "[W]hile [Mississippi Code Annotated] section 99-35-101 (Rev.2007) prevents a defendant from appealing his guilty plea itself, a defendant may pursue a direct appeal asserting the illegality of the sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea." Flowers v. State, 978 So.2d 1281, 1285(¶ 11) (Miss.Ct. App.2008).1 Oliver cites Trotter v. State, 554 So.2d 313 (Miss.1989) for the proposition that a circuit court judge must inform a defendant who pleads guilty that he has ... 20 So.3d 22 ... the right to appeal his sentence. Nevertheless, although ... ...
-
Young v. State
... ... Code Ann. 993911(2) (Rev. 2007). "On appeal, this Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR [petition] if the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right. " Flowers v. State , 978 So.2d 1281, 1283 ( 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Young v. State , 731 So.2d 1120, 1122 ( 9) (Miss. 1999) ). We review questions of law de novo. Johnson v. State , 962 So.2d 87, 89 ( 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). DISCUSSION 4. Young argues that his claim is not subject to the ... ...
-
Dillon v. State , 2009–CP–01228–COA.
... ... 16. Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 9935101 (Rev.2007), a defendant may not directly appeal his guilty plea; but he may pursue a direct appeal asserting the illegality of the sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea. [75 So.3d 1051] Oliver, 20 So.3d at 21 ( 12) (quoting Flowers v. State, 978 So.2d 1281, 1285 ( 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2008)). 2 Citing Trotter v. State, 554 So.2d 313 (Miss.1989), Dillon claims that the circuit judge was obligated to inform her that she had the right to appeal her sentence. However, this Court has clarified that a circuit court is not required to ... ...
-
Caston v. State
... ... " Young v. State , 245 So. 3d 510, 512 (3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting 346 So.3d 939 Flowers v. State , 978 So. 2d 1281, 1283 (5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ).DISCUSSION6. Caston claims that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is grossly disproportionate to the sentences imposed on his co-defendants. He specifically takes issue with the trial court's application of the ... ...