Roy Adams v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-00085-COA
ROY ADAMS A/K/A ROY LEE ADAMS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
12/15/2000
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS JR.
ELEANOR JOHNSON PETERSON
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION
RELIEF DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 05/14/2002
5/24/2002; denied 7/23/2002
8/5/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., BRIDGES, MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Roy Adams filed his petition for post-conviction relief claiming he received an illegal sentence. His
petition, in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Honorable W. Swan Yerger presiding, was dismissed as
procedurally barred. Adams now appeals. Finding no merit in his claims, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Roy Adams pled guilty in 1989 to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. He received a sentence
of seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections but was released after
successfully completing the RID program. Adams pled guilty in 1990 to a similar charge and was sentenced
to ten years with nine years, five months and ten days suspended and five years supervised probation. In the
year 2000, Adams filed for post-conviction relief claiming that he received an illegal sentence.
DISCUSSION
¶3. A petition for post-conviction relief must be filed within three years of conviction or, in this case, a guilty
plea. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2) (Supp. 2001). Adams has missed his statutory window of
opportunity to file his petition for post-conviction relief, as his petition was filed ten years after his plea. In
addition, Adams' assertion that he was harmed by receiving a suspended sentence is incorrect.
[I]t seems incontrovertible that the opportunity to have one's sentence suspended and thereby remain
free from incarceration is a substantial benefit rather than the kind of detriment that touches on an
individual's fundamental constitutional rights.
Williams v. State, 802 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). It also follows that one must suffer
harm before one can complain of an alleged error in the law. Id. at 1061. If any error occurred, it was
harmless error as Adams "benefit[ted] from an improperly lenient sentence." Id. at (¶7).
¶4. The looming question, of course, is why then is Adams still in jail ten years after what he claims is his last
guilty plea and sentence? The answer, gleaning what little we can from the sparse record, is that he violated
the terms of his suspended sentence agreement less than a year after he made the same. The violation of this
agreement landed him in jail with another pending criminal charge. The conviction of that crime, with the
logical conclusion that his sentence was probably enhanced due to habitual status, is why he is still
incarcerated. The only harm that came to Adams was at his own hand as the result of him being unable to
keep himself from selling cocaine while on supervised probation.
¶5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING PETITION
FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITH PREJUDICE IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HINDS COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
