Oscar Wallace v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-00173-COA
OSCAR WALLACE
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:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
12/29/2000
HON. GRAY EVANS
LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JO ANNE M. MCLEOD
FRANK CARLTON
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL
RELIEF DISMISSED AS BARRED BY STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS
AFFIRMED - 07/16/2002
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
8/6/2002
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., MYERS, AND CHANDLER, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. On April 17, 1997, in the Circuit Court of Leflore County, Mississippi, Oscar Wallace pled guilty to the
charge of the sale of cocaine. Wallace was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a term of thirty years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On November 15, 2000, he filed a motion for
post-conviction collateral relief alleging the following: (1) he was denied due process of law where his plea
of guilty and resulting conviction were the product of coercion by his attorney, (2) he was denied due
process of law due to the cumulative effect of fundamental and plain errors, and (3) he was denied effective
assistance of counsel. On December 29, 2000, the trial court dismissed Wallace's petition because it was
barred by the three year statute of limitations set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (Rev. 2000).
¶2. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3. On January 27, 1997, Wallace was indicted for the sale of cocaine within 1500 feet of a church in
violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-142 (Rev. 2001). He was charged as a habitual offender pursuant to
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83 (Rev. 2000). Wallace pled guilty to the charge on April 17, 1997, and was
sentenced to a term of thirty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, said sentence to run
concurrently to cause number 23,095 but consecutively to cause number 23,094 and cause number 23,
096.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING WALLACE'S MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF AS TIME BARRED PURSUANT TO MISS. CODE ANN. § 9939-5(2)?
¶4. In general, a petition for post-conviction relief based on a guilty plea must be brought within three years.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2000). In order to be excepted from this three year statute of
limitations, the petitioner must demonstrate:
[T]hat there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi
or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or
sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such
nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have
caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the
prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been
unlawfully revoked.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2000).
¶5. Wallace argues on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief
because his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary guilty plea qualify as exceptions to the
three year statute of limitations. This argument is without merit. In Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (¶6)
(Miss. 2000), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the time bar includes the petitioner's post-conviction
relief claims based on involuntariness of guilty pleas and ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶6. Wallace has otherwise failed to meet the requirements of the above-mentioned statute. He has cited no
intervening decisions of the United States Supreme Court or the Mississippi Supreme Court that have
adversely affected his conviction or sentence. He does not contend that he now has evidence which would
have caused a different result at trial if introduced. He has also failed to demonstrate that his sentence has
expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. As such, the trial court
did not err in dismissing Wallace's petition for post-conviction relief.
¶7. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEFLORE COUNTY DISMISSING
WITH PREJUDICE WALLACE'S POST-CONVICTION RELIEF MOTION IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LEFLORE COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING, MYERS 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.
