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.

Edmonson v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

February 27, 2018

WILLIAM R. EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM RANDLE EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A RANDALL EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM R. EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONDSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONDSON A/K/A WILLIAM EDMONDSON APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2016

         COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOWARD

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM R. EDMONSON, JR. (PRO SE)

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

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

          GREENLEE, J.

         FOR THE COURT:

         ¶1. William R. Edmonson, Jr., filed a post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion claiming that the Lowndes County Circuit Court improperly revoked his post-release supervision (PRS) and imposed the remainder of his two previously suspended consecutive five-year sentences for uttering forgeries. More specifically, he argued that he was denied due process because he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and his sentences exceeded statutory guidelines. The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR motion without the necessity of a hearing. On appeal, Edmonson does not reiterate his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Therefore, it is not before this Court. As to all other claims, we find no error and affirm the circuit court's judgment summarily dismissing Edmonson's PCR motion.

         STATEMENT OF FACTS

         ¶2. On May 24, 2006, Edmonson pled guilty to two counts of uttering a forgery.[1] On both counts, he was sentenced to five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), followed by five years of PRS. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total of ten years of incarceration, followed by ten years of PRS.

         ¶3. In September 2015, Edmonson's PRS was revoked because he had violated several conditions of his PRS: he was arrested and charged with grand larceny, he had tested positive for illegal drugs, he had failed to pay required supervision fees to MDOC, and he had failed to pay court-ordered restitution and fines. The circuit court then ordered him to serve the remainder of his two sentences, ten years in total, with credit for time served awaiting revocation.

         ¶4. On October 18, 2016, Edmonson filed a PCR motion. Relevant to this appeal, Edmonson argued that (1) the circuit court lacked authority to impose a period of imprisonment greater than ninety days for his first technical violation of his PRS, (2) he was unconstitutionally held in excess of the statutory time period to conduct a revocation hearing, and (3) a discrepancy existed between his written revocation sentence and the sentence orally imposed at his revocation hearing. The circuit court summarily dismissed Edmonson's PCR motion. Edmonson appeals.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶5. We review the denial of a PCR motion for abuse of discretion, meaning "this Court will not disturb the factual findings of a trial court in denying the [motion] unless such findings are clearly erroneous." Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503, 506 (¶8) (Miss. 2010). "When reviewing questions of law, our standard is de novo." Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (ΒΆ4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). The summary dismissal of a PCR motion will be affirmed "if the movant fails to ...


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.