Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

January 24, 2017

BRIAN WILLIAMS A/K/A BRYAN WILLIAMS A/K/A BRIAN ANDREW WILLIAMS APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/06/2015

         SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. CAROL L. WHITE-RICHARD JUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRIAN WILLIAMS (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ.

          LEE, C.J.

         ¶1. Brian Williams appeals the summary dismissal of his fourth motion for postconviction relief (PCR). Finding that Williams's motion is both successive-writ barred and time-barred, and not excepted from the procedural bars, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. Williams was indicted by a Sunflower County grand jury for various offenses arising from the commission of a robbery. Williams pled guilty to one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault. For each count, he was sentenced to eighteen years, with five years suspended and thirteen years to serve, and five years of postrelease supervision. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

         ¶3. Williams's first PCR motion alleged speedy-trial violations and was denied by the trial court; we affirmed in Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 1090, 1093 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). His second PCR motion challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no merit to his claims, we again affirmed the trial court's dismissal of his PCR motion and also found his PCR motion was procedurally barred as a successive writ. Williams v. State, 110 So.3d 840, 845 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). In Williams's third PCR motion, also dismissed by the trial court, he claimed the indictment was defective for failure to allege all the essential elements of armed robbery and aggravated assault and ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney's failure to challenge the defects. In Williams v. State 158 So.3d 1171, 1175 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014), we affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Williams's third PCR motion, both on the merits and finding the motion procedurally barred as a successive writ.

         ¶4. Williams filed a fourth PCR motion. The trial court dismissed the motion as both time-barred and successive-writ barred. Williams now appeals, asserting that (1) the trial court erred by dismissing his PCR motion without reviewing the evidence he presented to support his claims; (2) the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to due process by failing to advise him of his constitutional right to cross-examine adverse witnesses; (3) the evidence submitted by the State was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶5. "When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Thinnes v. State,196 So.3d 204, 207-08 (ΒΆ10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.