Edward Byrom v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-00638-COA
EDWARD BYROM
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
2/21/2007
HON. PAUL S. FUNDERBURK
TISHOMINGO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
EDWARD BYROM (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
AFFIRMED - 04/01/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
On June 21, 2001, Edward Byrom pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Tishomingo County
to conspiracy to commit capital murder, accessory before the fact of grand larceny, and accessory
before the fact of burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit assault. Byrom was sentenced to
serve twenty years, five years, and twenty-five years, respectively, with twenty years suspended and
five years post-release supervision, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
The sentence in each count was ordered to run consecutively.
¶2.
Byrom filed a motion for post-conviction relief on November 14, 2006, alleging that he was
subjected to double jeopardy because the elements of the crimes he was convicted of overlapped;
therefore, he argues that his sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently rather than
consecutively. The trial court, in denying Byrom’s motion, upheld his sentences stating that each
crime required proof of different elements.
¶3.
Byrom now appeals, asserting that he was denied his right to be free from double jeopardy
and that his punishment was cumulative.
¶4.
Finding this appeal is time-barred, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the
trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2002). However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo.
Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶6.
According to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2007), a post-conviction
relief motion must be filed within three years after the entry of the judgment of the conviction.
Byrom’s judgment was entered on June 21, 2001, and he did not file his post-conviction relief
motion until November 14, 2006, well beyond the three-year limitation. Section 99-39-5(2) sets
forth certain exceptions to the three-year limitation, which include: (1) an intervening decision by
either the United States Supreme Court or the Mississippi Supreme Court that would have actually
adversely affected the outcome of the prisoner’s conviction or sentence; (2) a prisoner’s possession
of evidence that was not reasonably discoverable at the time of the trial, but had such evidence been
introduced at trial, it would have caused a different result; and (3) a prisoner’s claim that his
2
sentence has expired or his probation, parole, or conditional release have been unlawfully revoked.
Byrom makes no claim within these exceptions; therefore, Byrom’s motion for post-conviction relief
is time-barred.
¶7.
Since the trial court did not discuss the time-bar and focused only on Byrom’s argument that
his consecutive prison sentences were cumulative and violated his right to be free of double
jeopardy, we will also briefly address this issue. Byrom argues that the elements of breaking and
entering a dwelling with the intent to commit assault are incorporated in the charge of conspiracy
to commit capital murder. He also argues that the elements of grand larceny are included in the
breaking and entering charge. These crimes are completely different and require proving different
sets of elements. We agree with the trial court’s ruling that this argument is without merit.
¶8.
We find that the trial court did not err in denying Byrom’s motion for post-conviction relief.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
¶9.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TISHOMINGO COUNTY
DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO TISHOMINGO COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.