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.

Webber v. Denmark

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

July 17, 2017

FREDDIE L. WEBBER, JR. PETITIONER
v.
MR. DENMARK, RESPONDENTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SHARION AYCOCK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Freddie L. Webber, Jr. for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has responded to the petition; Webber has not replied, and the deadline to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

         Facts and Procedural Posture

         Freddie Webber is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. Webber was convicted for the sale of cocaine in Lowndes County Circuit Court Cause No. 2010-0280-CR1H and sentenced to thirty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a non-habitual offender and to pay a fine of $5, 000.00. Webber was originally sentenced as a habitual offender, but was resentenced as a non-habitual offender following post-conviction collateral review.

         Webber appealed his conviction and sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court. In his appellate brief, Webber raised the following grounds for relief, as stated by Webber through counsel:

I. Whether the trial court erred by not exclude[ing] prior bad acts evidence?
II. Whether the State's reliance on a paid confidential informant entitled the defense to a cautionary instruction?
III. Whether the weight of the evidence supports a guilty verdict?

         The state supreme court affirmed Webber's conviction and sentence. Webber v. State, 108 So.3d 930 (Miss. 2013) (Cause No. 2012-KA-00115-SCT).

         Webber then filed a pro se application in the Mississippi Supreme Court seeking permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for post-conviction collateral relief. In his application, Webber raised the following grounds for relief, as summarized by the court:

I. The indictment was insufficient under Mississippi Uniform County and Circuit Court Rule 7.06.
II. The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to impose Webber's sentence as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81.

         The Mississippi Supreme Court held in pertinent part:

After due consideration we find that Webber was unfairly surprised by the State's motion to amend the indictment to charge Webber as an habitual offender in accordance with § 99-19-83, and that in these circumstances the trial court erred in sentencing Webber as an habitual offender. This Court finds that Webber's Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief should be granted as to this claim. We further find that Webber's sentence as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-81 should be vacated, and this matter should be remanded to the Lowndes County Circuit Court for re-sentencing as a non-habitual offender for the crime of which the jury convicted him.

         Webber then filed the instant federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, raising the following grounds for relief (as stated by Mr. Webber): Ground One: Direct [verdict] / J.N.O.V ineffective assistance counsel trial/appeal.

Ground Two: Petitioner her[e] wish to reargue the same grounds that were raised on appeal.
Ground Three: Petitioner is wishing to re-argue his claim of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ground Four: Due Process and Equal Protection 8/14 amendment.

         As noted above, the State originally moved to dismiss Webber's petition because his allegations in Grounds One and Four are unexhausted. Doc. 10. The court afforded Webber an opportunity to amend his petition to delete the unexhausted claims, Doc. 12, which he did, withdrawing Grounds One and Four, Doc. 14.

         Discussion

         After Webber's withdrawal of the unexhausted grounds for relief, the issues currently before the court are as follows, as summarized by the court:

Ground Two: Claims raised on direct appeal:
A. Whether the trial court erred by not excluding prior bad acts evidence?
B. Whether the State's reliance on a paid confidential informant entitled the defense to a cautionary instruction?
C. Whether the weight of the evidence supports a guilty verdict?
Ground Three: The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because his indictment was insufficient under U.C.C.C.R. 7.06 for failure to list the ...

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.