Merlin LKent Williams a/k/a Merlin Kent Williams a/k/a Marvin Kent Williams v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: January 28, 2020
• Docket: NO. 2018-CP-01401-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2018-CP-01401-COA

MERLIN LKENT WILLIAMS A/K/A MERLIN APPELLANT KENT WILLIAMS A/K/A MARVIN KENT WILLIAMS

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/10/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MERLIN LKENT WILLIAMS (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: MATTHEW WYATT WALTON NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/28/2020 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., TINDELL AND C. WILSON, JJ.

C. WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Harrison County jury found Merlin LKent Williams guilty of aggravated assault.

The circuit court sentenced Williams to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi

Department of Corrections (MDOC). Williams appealed. See Williams v. State, 281 So. 3d

939, 941-42 (¶¶7-10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that Williams’s argument that he was

the wrong person on trial due to the alleged misspelling of his name was without merit). On

August 1, 2018, while his appeal was pending before this Court, Williams, pro se, filed

various motions with the Harrison County Circuit Court. Treating his “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” as a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR), the circuit court

denied Williams’s request for relief. Williams now appeals the denial of his PCR motion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. A Harrison County jury found Williams guilty of aggravated assault, and he was

sentenced to serve twenty years in MDOC’s custody. Williams appealed his conviction, and

after his appellate counsel filed a Lindsey1 brief asserting that there were no issues warranting

appellate review, Williams filed a supplemental pro se brief raising ten issues. Williams, 281

So. 3d at 941 (¶¶5-6). The issues raised by Williams centered on the purported misspelling

of his name; Williams contended that “Merlin Kent Williams” was convicted and sentenced,

not “Merlin LKent Williams,” the alleged proper spelling of his name. Id. at 941-42 (¶7).

We found Williams’s issues on direct appeal, including the purported misidentification of

Williams based on the misspelling of his middle name, without merit and affirmed his

conviction. Id. at 942 (¶10).

¶3. On August 1, 2018, while his appeal was pending before this Court, Williams, pro se,

filed various motions with the Harrison County Circuit Court. Two of the filings were styled

as a “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing” and a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which

the circuit court treated as one PCR motion. Williams did not request leave from the

Mississippi Supreme Court in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7

(Rev. 2015) before filing these motions. As in his direct appeal, these motions centered on

Williams’s assertion that because he was indicted as “Merlin Kent Williams,” while his real

1 Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743, 748 (¶18) (Miss. 2005).

2 name is “Merlin LKent Williams,” he was wrongly convicted and is therefore serving an

illegal sentence.

¶4. On September 10, 2018, the circuit court denied Williams’s “Motion for Evidentiary

Hearing,” noting that “the appeal of his conviction and sentence [was] pending before the

Mississippi Court of Appeals[.]” The circuit court denied Williams’s “Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus” the same day, for the same reason, noting that this was Williams’s fifth such

motion and that the court had denied his first “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Post-

Conviction” on the same basis. Williams filed his “Notice of Appeal for Fifth Writ of

Habeas Corpus and Evidentiary Hearing” on September 21, 2018.2

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. “‘This Court will not disturb a trial court’s dismissal of a [motion] for post-conviction

relief unless the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous.’” Jackson v. State, 75 So. 3d

84, 85 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Wardley v. State, 37 So. 3d 1222, 1223-24 (¶4)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2010)). “When reviewing questions of law, this Court’s standard of review

is de novo.” Chapman v. State, 135 So. 3d 184, 185 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

DISCUSSION

¶6. On appeal, Williams renews his contention that he is not “Merlin Kent Williams” but

rather “Merlin LKent Williams” such that he was wrongly convicted and is therefore serving

2 Williams’s notice of appeal of the circuit court’s denial of his PCR motion is but one of several filings, with both the supreme court and this Court, Williams made during the pendency of his direct appeal. While not relevant to the issues in the instant appeal, those filings likewise parroted Williams’s contentions about the misspelling of his middle name. See, e.g., Order, Williams v. State, No. 2018-M-00573 (Miss. Aug. 8, 2018); Order, Williams v. State, 2018-TS-00585-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2018).

3 an illegal sentence. In denying Williams’s PCR motion, the circuit court did not reach the

merits of this issue. We likewise decline to do so and find no error with the circuit court’s

denial of relief.

¶7. By its terms, the circuit court’s order “denied” Williams’s PCR motion because “the

appeal of his conviction and sentence [was] pending” before this Court. Practically, the

circuit court’s order “is more accurately characterized as summarily dismissing [Williams’s]

motion, since the circuit court declined to consider the merits of [his] motion due to the

circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction,” i.e., because of the pendency of Williams’s direct appeal.

Jackson, 75 So. 3d at 85 (¶3).

¶8. The Mississippi Supreme Court addressed a case with a similar posture in Connell v.

State, 691 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Miss. 1997); see also Jackson, 75 So. 3d at 85 (¶4) (discussing

Connell). In Connell, a petitioner filed a motion for post-conviction relief while his direct

appeal was still pending. Connell, 691 So. 2d at 1006. The supreme court held that because

Connell’s PCR filing was premature, the appropriate disposition was to “affirm the dismissal

without prejudice.” Id. The supreme court noted that the petitioner “may still present the

motion for post-conviction relief,” but he must do so in accordance with the procedure set

forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7. Id. This section “provides that when

a defendant’s conviction and sentence [have] ‘been affirmed on appeal or the appeal has been

dismissed,’ a PCR motion ‘shall not be filed in the trial court’ unless the supreme court

grants the defendant leave to file the motion.” Saunders v. State, No. 2018-CP-00141-COA,

2019 WL 1348363, at *1 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2019), cert. denied, 279 So. 3d 1085

4 (Miss. 2019). Further, as we cautioned in Jackson, we admonish Williams that “filing any

further motions for post-conviction relief without first obtaining the supreme court’s

permission to do so will render any such motions procedurally barred.” Jackson, 75 So. 3d

at 85 (¶4) (citing Wardley, 37 So. 3d at 1225 (¶8)).

¶9. Because Williams’s PCR motion was filed while his direct appeal was pending, his

request for PCR relief was premature. Further, Williams failed to seek leave from the

supreme court before filing his PCR motion in the circuit court. Therefore, we affirm the

circuit court’s dismissal of Williams’s PCR motion, as the circuit court lacked jurisdiction

to reach the merits of Williams’s claim.3

¶10. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, McDONALD, LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ., CONCUR.

3 In its brief, the State requests that we strike various exhibits that Williams attached to his Appellant’s Brief that are not found within the record filed with this Court. Because we do not address the merits of Williams’s claim, this request is denied as moot.