WILLIE LEE WILLIAMS A/K/A BLACK BILL A/K/A WILLIE WILLIAMS APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 10/26/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. ANTHONY ALAN MOZINGO
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIE LEE WILLIAMS (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
ALICIA MARIE AINSWORTH
Willie Lee Williams appeals his unsuccessful motion to vacate
his sentence which the Marion County Circuit Court denied on
the basis that it was barred as a subsequent motion for
postconviction relief (PCR). Because Williams's PCR
motion was frivolous, time-barred, and successive-writ
barred, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Additionally, this is Williams's eighth PCR motion and,
as of this opinion, his fourth case resolved as contemplated
by Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-76(1) (Rev. 2015).
We take judicial notice that past sanctions of $100 and $200,
even with his averred indigent status, have done little to
deter Williams's abuse of judicial time and resources. As
a result, we sanction Williams in the amount of $1, 000 and
prohibit him from filing further PCR motions in forma
pauperis pursuant to the mandates of section 47-5-76(1).
The facts and procedural history preceding this PCR motion
were succinctly set forth by the Mississippi Supreme Court in
Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181 (Miss. Ct. App.
2001) (overruled on other grounds, by Brown v.
State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (¶20) (Miss. 2008)) and
by this Court in Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 484
(Miss. Ct. App. 2012). In summary, after indictment and a
jury trial in 1999 and a later resentencing upon remand,
Williams remains in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections serving a sixty-year sentence for the sale or
transfer of a controlled substance with enhanced sentencing
as a habitual offender. In 2012, Williams's second PCR
was found to be frivolous and resolved as contemplated by
section 47-5-76(1). Williams, 98 So.3d at 489
(¶18). Since then, the Mississippi Supreme Court has
entered two separate orders sanctioning Williams for
frivolous filings. Williams v. State, 2013-M-00563.
This appeal stems from his eighth PCR motion. Williams
recasts another version of his prior claims that he has been
unconstitutionally convicted and sentenced as a habitual
offender. He claims that Armstead v. State, 196
So.3d 913 (Miss. 2016), is an intervening decision that
affects his outcome and overrules a holding in his case. He
also claims his presence at resentencing was required and
requests eligibility for parole.
A trial court's denial of a PCR motion will not be
reversed unless it is found to be clearly erroneous.
Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2012). The trial court's legal conclusions,
however, are reviewed under a de novo standard of review.
Failure to Seek Leave to Proceed
Initially we note the record contains no order from the
Supreme Court granting Williams leave to file his current PCR
motion with the circuit court. Mississippi case law
establishes that fact alone deprived the circuit court of
jurisdiction to reach the merits of Williams's PCR
Motion. See Williams v. State, 98 So.3d at 487