Williams v. State, 872 So. 2d 711 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. State, 872 So. 2d 711 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2013–2025 · …for issues involving questions of law, the applicable standard of review is de novo. ≈ altered
189 citation events (189 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Malcolm Crump a/k/a Malcolm Cordez Crump v. State of Mississippi (missctapp, 2025-02-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Malcolm Crump a/k/a Malcolm Cordez Crump v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2013) (emphasis added) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So. 2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clifton Davenport a/k/a Clifton D. Davenport a/k/a Cliff Davenport a/k/a Clifford Davenport v. State of Mississippi;
Miss. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2008) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So. 2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eddrick King v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.
cited Cited as authority (rule) James Allen Swaim v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ryan Savinell v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“However, questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Charles Funchess v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
When considering the dismissal of a PCR motion on appeal, “we review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error.” White v. State, 59 So.3d 633, 635 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rosa Wallace v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
A trial court’s dismissal or denial of a PCR motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion and will only be reversed if the decision is “clearly erroneous.” Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Crosby v. State, 16 So.3d 74, 77 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2009)). ‘When reviewing questions of law, our standard is de novo.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McDonald v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
“When reviewing questions' of law, [the] standard is de novo.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roy Dale Wallace v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Pace v. State, 770 So.2d 1052, 1056 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2000)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barron Borden v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). ¶ 7.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Alvin Thomas, III v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 73 So.3d 542, 544 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gregory Kendall Allen, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
We will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earnest Sykes v. State of Mississippi
Miss. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“In reviewing the trial court’s dismissal of a motion for post-conviction relief, this Court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Whatley v. State, 123 So.3d 461, 466 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Small v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
A circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion will not be disturbed on appeal “unless it is clearly erroneous.” Holder v. State, 69 So.3d 54, 55 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rustin v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
A circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion will not be disturbed on appeal “unless it is clearly erroneous.” Holder v. State, 69 So.3d 54, 55 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cook v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moffite v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) O'Cain v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
A circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion will not be disturbed on appeal “unless the decision is clearly erroneous.” Watson v. State, 100 So.3d 1034, 1036 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 73 So.3d 542, 544 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (f 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weary v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pickle v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Bell v. State, 95 So.3d 760, 763 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Britton v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sylvester v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (IT 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nichols v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). ¶ 12.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Whatley v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McGriggs v. State
Miss. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bell v. State, 95 So.3d 760, 763 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bradford v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
White v. State, 59 So.3d 633, 635 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doss v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brock v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watts v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pepper v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
When considering the dismissal of a PCR motion on appeal, “we review the trial court’s findings of fact for clear error.” White v. State, 59 So.3d 633, 635 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo.” Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State (2×)
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“A circuit court’s dismissal of a motion for post-conviction collateral relief will not be reversed on appeal absent a finding that the circuit court’s decision was clearly erroneous.” Willis v. State, 66 So.3d 740, 742 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Whitfield v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.Ct.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hills v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Duncan v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Dobbs v. State, 18 So.Sd 295, 297 (¶6) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fair v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“In reviewing a circuit court’s decision to dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief, we will not disturb the circuit court’s factual decisions unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id. (citing Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Houston v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holmes v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brooks v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Madden v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Shields v. State
Miss. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 371 (¶ 6) (Miss.2009); Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss.Ct.App.2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lazente Carnell WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
2003-CP-00650-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
May 4, 2004.
872 So. 2d 711
2004 WL 944067
En Banc.
Cited by 133 opinions  |  Published

[*712] Lazente Carnell Williams, Appellant, pro se.

Office of the Attorney General by Charles W. Maris, attorney for appellee.

EN BANC.

LEE, J., for the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS

¶ 1. On February 11, 1998, in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Lazente Carnell Williams pled guilty to two counts of burglary and, on March 11, 1998, pled guilty to one count of possession of cocaine. Williams was sentenced to five years on each burglary count, to run concurrently, with three years of each sentence suspended. Williams was sentenced to three years on the possession charge, with one year suspended. The lower court ordered that the possession charge was to run concurrently with the burglary charges and that each of the sentences were to run concurrently with a federal sentence that Williams was to serve in the federal penal system. On December 11, 2002, Williams filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The trial court treated Williams's petition as a motion for post-conviction relief and dismissed the motion as timebarred. Williams now appeals to this Court asserting that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered into and that the trial court erred in not considering his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finding these issues to be without merit, we affirm the dismissal of postconviction relief.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

¶ 2. In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of post-conviction relief, our standard of review is well stated. We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo. Pace v. State, 770 So.2d 1052 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2000).

¶ 3. Williams argues that his guilty plea was not entered into either knowingly or voluntarily and that the trial court erred in not considering his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. However, according to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(2) (Supp.2003), "[a] motion for relief under this article shall be made... in case of a guilty plea, within three (3) years after entry of the judgment of conviction." As Williams entered his guilty pleas on February 11 and March 11 of 1998, and his motion for relief was filed more than three years later, we find that the motion was properly dismissed as time-barred.

¶ 4. Regardless of the time bar, Williams's other claims are also without merit. According to the Mississippi Supreme Court, if the defendant is advised regarding the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, then the plea is considered voluntary and intelligent. Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170, 1172 (Miss.1992). Furthermore, "[s]olemn declarations[*713] in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Baker v. State, 358 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss.1978). In the present case, the record reflects that Williams was informed of the charges against him and the possible sentence. The record also reveals that Williams admitted to committing the crimes charged. In light of the fact that Williams stated under oath that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty and that no one had made any representations to him regarding his sentence, we find Williams's argument that his plea was not voluntary to be without merit.

¶ 5. In his argument concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, Williams merely claims that his attorney did not inform him of the consequences of the guilty plea. While looking to the totality of the circumstances, we must determine whether Williams proved his counsel's performance was deficient and whether this deficiency resulted in prejudice to Williams. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). It is clear from the record of the plea colloquy that Williams was informed of the consequences of his guilty plea. We cannot find that Williams was denied effective assistance of counsel; thus, this issue is without merit.

¶ 6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE TAXED TO LEE COUNTY.

KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.