Moses L. Pleas v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-01126-COA
MOSES L. PLEAS
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
05/22/2001
HON. MICHAEL R. EUBANKS
LAMAR COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEAN SMITH VAUGHAN
CLAIBORNE MCDONALD
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 06/25/2002
7/16/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, LEE, AND IRVING, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Moses Pleas, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Lamar County, Mississippi denying his
petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Pleas asserts the following issues on appeal:
I. PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN ATTORNEYS
REFUSED TO REPRESENT HIM UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.
II. PETITIONER WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND WAS
DENIED THE ABILITY TO PREPARE HIS CASE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT.
III. PETITIONER WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
IV. PLAIN ERROR WAS COMMITTED IN THE PROCESS OF ENTERING A PLEA
AND THE APPEAL OF THE PLEA.
Finding no error, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶2. Moses Pleas pled guilty to fondling in Lamar County Circuit Court and was sentenced on May 7, 1998
to a term of ten years with five years suspended to be served on post-release supervision. Pleas filed a
petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court which was denied. This Court affirmed the trial court in
Pleas v. State, 766 So. 2d 41 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Pleas filed a second petition for post-conviction
relief in the trial court which the trial court denied because it was time-barred and successive. From the
second denial, Pleas again appeals to this Court.
ANALYSIS
I. WAS PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN ATTORNEYS
REFUSED TO REPRESENT HIM UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?
II. WAS PETITIONER DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND WAS HE
DENIED THE ABILITY TO PREPARE HIS CASE UNDER THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT?
III. WAS PETITIONER DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL?
IV. WAS PLAIN ERROR COMMITTED IN THE PROCESS OF ENTERING A PLEA
AND THE APPEAL OF THE PLEA?
¶3. We combine the issues asserted by Pleas into one issue as follows:
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING PLEAS'S SUCCESSIVE PETITION
FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AS TIME-BARRED?
¶4. In Pleas v. State, this Court unanimously affirmed the denial of Pleas' first petition for post-conviction
relief. Effective assistance of counsel was addressed by this Court in that opinion. Pleas, 766 So. 2d at 42.
The validity of Pleas's guilty plea was also addressed, and it was found that it was voluntarily, intelligently,
and knowingly made. Id. at 43. A valid guilty plea waives any issues raised regarding the waiver of a
preliminary hearing. Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390, 391 (Miss. 1991).
¶5. According to section 99-39-23(6) of the Mississippi Code, the denial of relief is "a bar to a second or
successive motion(s)." Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2000). Although there are exceptions, Pleas
has failed to point us to any here. In a petition for post-conviction relief, the petitioner carries the burden of
proving that his claim is not procedurally barred, and Pleas has failed to overcome this burden with an
exception fitting under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. Lockett v. State, 614 So. 2d 888, 893 (Miss.
1993). This Court has previously examined the issues he now asserts and found them to be without merit.
The lower court did not err in denying Pleas's petition for post-conviction relief.
¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO
LAMAR COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
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.
