Clyde Henderson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-01957-COA
CLYDE HENDERSON
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF 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:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
9/13/2004
HON. ANDREW C. BAKER
PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CLYDE HENDERSON (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. DANIEL HINCHCLIFF
JOHN W. CHAMPION
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED 10/18/2005
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
CHANDLER, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Clyde Henderson pleaded guiltyto one count of strong armed robbery and one count of attempted
strong armed robbery. Four years later, Henderson filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which the
Panola County Circuit Court dismissed. Henderson appeals, raising the following issues, which we quote
verbatim from his brief:
1. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT’S SENTENCE
WAS NOT ILLEGAL, SUCH ACTION VIOLATES U.S.C.A. AMENDMENTS FOURTEEN,
EIGHT, AND FIVE.
2. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS
VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C.A.
AMENDMENTS FOURTEEN AND FIVE.
3. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT WAS NOT
AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C.A.
AMENDMENT SIX.
¶2.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶3.
On May 25, 2000, Clyde Henderson was indicted by a grand jury in Panola County for the
charges of strong armed robbery and attempted strong armed robbery. He was charged as a habitual
offender because he had been convicted on April 26, 1990 for uttering a forgery and burglary and on
February 26, 1992, for robbery and escape from jail.
¶4.
On July 12, 2000, Henderson entered guilty pleas to the charges. The judge asked a series of
questions to insure that Henderson’s plea was voluntary. Henderson was sentenced to served ten years
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, followed by five years of post-release
supervision on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently with each other and with the sentence
he was currently serving.
¶5.
On July 8, 2004, Henderson filed a motion for post-conviction relief to vacate and set aside his
conviction and sentence. The circuit court considered Henderson’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel, involuntary plea and illegal sentence and made findings that these claims were without merit.
ANALYSIS
1. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT’S
SENTENCE WAS NOT ILLEGAL, SUCH ACTION VIOLATES U.S.C.A. AMENDMENTS
FOURTEEN, EIGHT, AND FIVE.
2
2. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT’S PLEA
WAS VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY, AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE IN VIOLATION OF
U.S.C.A. AMENDMENTS FOURTEEN AND FIVE.
3. CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED ERROR WHEN IT STATED APPELLANT WAS NOT
AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C.A.
AMENDMENT SIX.
¶6.
Henderson entered his guilty plea on July 12, 2000, and he did not file his motion for post-
conviction relief until July 8, 2004. This Court finds that Henderson’s appeal is procedurally barred due
to his failure to file his petition for post-conviction relief within the three-year statute of limitations as set
forth in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 2004).
¶7.
Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(1) (Supp. 2004) specifically includes claims of
unconstitutional sentencing and involuntary pleas of guilty as subject to the three-year statute of limitations.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has specifically held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
subject to the three-year statute of limitations. Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345, 346 (¶6) (Miss. 2000).
Henderson’s claims for post-conviction relief are clearly time-barred.
¶8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PANOLA COUNTY DISMISSING THE
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO PANOLA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
