Earl L. Wright v. State of Mississippi ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE
    STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
    NO. 2000-CP-00025-COA
    EARL L. WRIGHT A/K/A EARL LEE WRIGHT                                                        APPELLANT
    v.
    STATE OF MISSISSIPPI                                                                          APPELLEE
    DATE OF JUDGMENT:           05/07/1999
    TRIAL JUDGE:                HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS
    COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:     PRO SE
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY: CHARLES W. MARIS JR.
    DISTRICT ATTORNEY:          JAMES H. POWELL III
    NATURE OF THE CASE:         CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
    TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:    05/07/1999: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - DISMISSED.
    DISPOSITION:                AFFIRMED - 10/31/2000
    MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 11/14/2000; denied 2/6/2001
    CERTIORARI FILED:           ; denied 1/3/2002
    MANDATE ISSUED:             2/27/2001
    BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., IRVING, AND MYERS, JJ.
    MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
    ¶1. In 1998 Earl Wright filed two motions for post-conviction relief for two guilty pleas, one entered in
    1978 and another entered in 1980. He also petitioned the court to vacate the sentences associated with
    those pleas. Both of these motions were dismissed. The Circuit Court of Holmes County held that Mr.
    Wright had missed his window of opportunity and his claims were barred by the three year statute of
    limitations set out in Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 1999). Based on the language of the statute,
    we affirm the lower court in dismissing these time barred claims.
    FACTS
    ¶2. Over two decades ago, in 1978 Earl Wright was arrested on a charge for burglary. He pled guilty and
    was sentenced to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with four years
    suspended. Less than a year later, Wright was convicted of his second offense of burglary. He received a
    ten year sentence and, in addition, he had to serve the previously suspended four years because this
    burglary violated his parole. In 1980, while serving his time, he attacked the prison doctor. Wright was
    indicted for aggravated assault. Against his attorney's advice, he pled guilty. He was sentenced to an
    additional five years. Mr. Wright now wants this Court to overturn the decision of the Circuit Court of
    Holmes County regarding the lack of evidence presented in his motions and the tardiness of his post-
    conviction appeal.
    ANALYSIS
    ¶3. Mr. Wright's main concern is whether he has a right to an evidentiary hearing regarding his claims. The
    clear language of the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(
    Supp. 1999), allows for a three year window in which to file an appeal. He could have either filed within
    three years from (1) an opinion of the Circuit Court on direct appeal, ( 2) time for appeal expired, if no
    appeal is taken, or (3) entry of a guilty plea or judgment of conviction. 
    Id. ¶4. In order
    to get this hearing , Wright needed to allege any one of the exceptions in § 99-39-5(2). 
    Id. Of the three
    exceptions, Mr. Wright alleges that he has new evidence not reasonably discoverable at trial, but
    offers no proof in support of his allegations. Without support of his claims the motions are time barred.
    ¶5. The Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction collateral Relief Act was enacted on April 17, 1985. Wright
    had three years in which to file these claims beginning on the effective date of April 17, 1985. Patterson v.
    State, 
    594 So. 2d 606
    , 607 (Miss.1992)(quoting Odom v. State, 
    483 So. 2d 343
    , 344 (Miss. 1986)).
    Similar to Odom, Wright entered a plea of guilty in 1978, which was six years before the Uniform Post-
    Conviction Relief Act was enacted in 1984. That six year lapse plus the three years from the date of
    enactment afforded Wright nine years to effectively file an appeal. He did not do so.
    ¶6. The lower court was correct in dismissing these motions due to the expiration of the statute of
    limitations. Mr. Wright's claims are barred as his appeal is more than a decade overdue.
    ¶7. JUDGMENT OF THE HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POST-
    CONVICTION RELIEF IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
    ASSESSED TO HOLMES COUNTY.
    McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, IRVING, LEE, MOORE,
    PAYNE, AND THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2000-CT-00025-SCT

Filed Date: 5/7/1999

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014