Owens v. State
| Citation | 17 So.3d 628 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-CP-01601-COA.,2008-CP-01601-COA. |
| Parties | Charles Douglas OWENS, II, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Office Of The Attorney General by Billy L. Gore, attorney for appellee.
Before MYERS, P.J., IRVING and BARNES, JJ.
BARNES, J., for the Court.
¶ 1. In the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Charles Douglas Owens, II pleaded guilty and was sentenced to thirty years for armed robbery and ten years for aggravated assault, with the sentences to run consecutively for a total of forty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). After filing an unsuccessful motion for post-conviction relief with the trial court on February 2, 2006, and while the appeal from that decision was pending before this Court, Owens filed a motion for clarification of sentence, which the circuit court subsequently denied as time-barred, treating it as a motion for post-conviction relief. By separate order, the circuit court also denied Owens's three post-trial motions which were filed prior to his February 2, 2006, motion for post-conviction relief. Owens now appeals the circuit court's denial of his four motions. Finding no error, we affirm.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. The detailed factual history regarding the background of Owens's arrest and conviction has already been discussed in our opinion affirming the denial of Owens's February 2, 2006, motion for post-conviction relief. See Owens v. State, 996 So.2d 85 (Miss.Ct.App.2008). We will not repeat that discussion except as necessary. On February 4, 2003, Owens pleaded guilty to armed robbery and aggravated assault. He was sentenced on March 17, 2003, to thirty years for armed robbery and ten years for aggravated assault, with the sentences to run consecutively, for a total of forty years in the custody of the MDOC.
¶ 3. On March 20, 2003, Owens filed a pro se motion for reconsideration. A week later, Owens's attorney-of-record filed a "Motion for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative to Withdraw Plea." On April 14, 2003, Owens filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nearly three years later, on February 2, 2006, Owens's new counsel filed a motion for post-conviction relief, making three arguments: (1) there were mitigating factors which, if known, would have decreased his sentence; (2) his plea was involuntarily given; and (3) his plea should be withdrawn as there was an agreement between the circuit court, the State, and Owens as to his sentence. On January 3, 2007, the circuit court entered its order denying the 2006 motion for post-conviction relief. On June 27, 2007, while that decision was pending on appeal, Owens filed a pro se motion for clarification of sentence stating that MDOC's position on his eligibility for parole contradicted the intent of the sentencing judge. In affirming the denial of Owens's 2006 motion for post-conviction relief, we noted that there was no indication that Owens's three 2003 post-trial motions, which were included in the record, had been ruled upon. See Owens, 996 So.2d at 89(¶ 13). Owens thereafter reasserted those motions via a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the circuit court to take action on his 2003 motions. On August 11, 2008, the circuit court issued two separate orders denying Owens's various motions. One order (Order No. 1) dealt with Owens's three post-trial motions filed in 2003. In that order, the judge stated that: (1) the motions had never been set for hearing; (2) the order denying Owens's first motion for post-conviction relief addressed the issues set forth in the post-trial motions; and (3) the motions were without merit. The second order (Order No. 2) stated that Owens's June 27, 2007, motion for clarification of his sentence was time-barred as it was filed more than three years after Owens's judgment of conviction. Based upon the entry of the orders by the circuit court, the Mississippi Supreme Court dismissed the petition for writ of mandamus as moot on August 15, 2008. Owens filed a "Traverse," requesting a vacation of the circuit court's orders, which was subsequently denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court on September 10, 2008.1 Owens's notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2008.
JURISDICTION
¶ 4. First, we must determine whether Owens's notice of appeal was filed timely in order to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Owens's notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 2008, thirty-one days after the entry of the circuit court judge's orders. Rule 4(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure states that "the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Therefore, Owens's notice of appeal was filed one day late, which would normally bar review of the appeal by this Court. However, since Owens's motion for post-conviction relief was pro se and the notice of appeal was filed while he was incarcerated, the "prison mailbox rule" applies. Craft v. State, 966 So.2d 856, 858(¶ 10) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Sykes v. State, 757 So.2d 997, 1000-01(¶ 14) (Miss.2000)). "Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal is effectively filed under Rule 4 when the prisoner delivers his notice of appeal to the proper prison authorities for mailing." Carroll v. State, 3 So.3d 767, 769(¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2008) (citation omitted).
¶ 5. There is nothing in the record to indicate when Owens delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities. When the State moves for dismissal on the issue of timeliness, it has the burden of proof. Melton v. State, 930 So.2d 452, 455(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted). The State, however, has not challenged the timeliness of Owens's appeal. This Court has found that where the petitioner's notice of appeal from his denial of his motion for post-conviction relief "is stamped filed within a reasonable time after the expiration of the time allowed by Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)[,] a rebuttable presumption exists that it was timely filed." Lewis v. State, 988 So.2d 942, 944(¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Jewell v. State, 946 So.2d 810, 813(¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). In order for the State to rebut this presumption, it would have to present proof, such as "a `prison mail log of legal mail,' or some similarly reliable documentation ... [such as] a self-authenticating certificate from the records custodian pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Evidence 803(10), 902(4), or 902(11)." Id. The State has failed to include such evidence in the record.
¶ 6. Therefore, as the notice of appeal was filed only one day after the thirty-day deadline, there exists a strong presumption that Owens met the requirements of Rule 4(a). Accordingly, we find that we have jurisdiction to consider Owens's appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 7. This Court "will not disturb a lower court's denial of a petition for post-conviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous." Long v. State, 982 So.2d 1042, 1043(¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Smith v. State, 806 So.2d 1148, 1150(¶ 3) (Miss.Ct. App.2002)). "However, when questions of law are raised, the standard of review is de novo." Id. (citing Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598(¶ 6) (Miss.1999)).
¶ 8. "This Court reviews the terms of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard." Vardaman v. State, 966 So.2d 885, 891(¶ 28) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007). The circuit court judge has "complete discretion" in sentencing. Id. Unless the sentence is grossly disproportionate or not within the statutory limits, we will not disturb the sentence on appeal. Hull v. State, 983 So.2d 331, 335(¶ 21) (Miss.Ct. App.2007) (citing Campbell v. State, 743 So.2d 1050, 1054(¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)).
¶ 9. Owens argues that the circuit court erred in Order No. 1 by denying his two motions for reconsideration and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. As we find that the two March 2003 motions for reconsideration and the April 2003 motion to withdraw guilty plea are procedurally distinct, we will address them separately.
¶ 10. The circuit court judge stated in Order No. 1 that, as Owens failed to pursue a hearing on these two post-trial motions and there was no order carrying these motions from term to term, it appeared that Owens waived the motions and the circuit court's jurisdiction to consider them was "questionable." We agree in part. The circuit court has jurisdiction to consider a motion regarding sentencing if "it is made within the term of court, the motion is pending at the end of the term under [Mississippi Code Annotated] section 11-1-16 [(Rev.2002)], or the trial court retains jurisdiction pursuant to [Mississippi Code Annotated] section 47-7-47 [(Rev.2004)]." Ducote v. State, 970 So.2d 1309, 1313(¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2007). In this case, the court did not retain jurisdiction pursuant to section 47-7-47. Additionally, the term of court ended on March 21 2003;2 therefore, Owens's March 20, 2003, motion for reconsideration was filed before the term of court ended, but his March 27, 2003, motion was not. As such, the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider only Owens's first motion for reconsideration; Owens's March 27, 2003, motion for reconsideration was filed untimely, as the term of court had already expired. Accordingly, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to consider that motion.
¶ 11. In Order No. 1, the circuit court judge submitted that the issues in Owens's two motions for reconsideration had been addressed in Owens's 2006 motion for post-conviction relief; therefore, these issues had been ruled upon. We disagree. Although the post-trial motions for reconsideration and the 2006 motion for post-conviction relief both dealt with sentencing issues,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Williams v. State
- Lawrence v. State
- Owens v. State, 2013–CP–01447–COA.
-
Williams v. State, 2011-CA-00458-COA
...denial of a [PCR motion] unless it is clearly erroneous." Johnson v. State, 80 So. 3d 136, 138 (¶5) (Miss. 2012) (citing Owens v. State, 17 So. 3d 628, 632 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). "However, when questions of law are raised, the standard of review is de novo." Id. ¶4. Although the timel......