Daniel Williamson v. State of Mississippi , 269 So. 3d 421 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2017-CP-00634-COA
DANIEL WILLIAMSON A/K/A DANIEL LARRY APPELLANT
WILLIAMSON A/K/A DANIEL L.
WILLIAMSON
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/17/2017
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COLLINS
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DANIEL WILLIAMSON (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/05/2018
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE LEE, C.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Daniel Williamson pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of
arson. The Neshoba County Circuit Court accepted Williamson’s guilty plea and sentenced
him to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for his
manslaughter conviction and twenty years for his arson conviction, with the sentences to run
consecutively, for a total of forty years to serve.
¶2. Williamson filed a motion for postconviction relief (PCR), which the trial court
dismissed as a successive writ, duplicitous request, and lacking merit. Williamson now
appeals, arguing that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Williamson
committed a crime. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Williamson’s
PCR motion as a successive writ. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015).
FACTS
¶3. In May 2013, a Neshoba County grand jury indicted Williamson with one count of
murder and one count of arson stemming from the death of Williamson’s girlfriend, Terri
Gwyn.
¶4. During Williamson’s trial held on November 11, 2013, the trial court heard testimony
from four witnesses for the State: Terry Cremeen, Williamson’s coworker; Tiffany Miller,
Gwyn’s close friend; Ralph Sciple, chief investigator for the Neshoba County Sheriff’s
Department; and Pete Adcock, a deputy at the State Fire Marshal’s office.
¶5. Cremeen testified that on the morning of March 2, 2013, he arrived at Williamson’s
trailer to give him a ride to work. Williamson was waiting outside of his trailer holding a box
of moonshine. Cremeen testified that Williamson put the moonshine in the back of
Cremeen’s truck and told Cremeen that he needed to go back inside to get his lunch box.
After about ten minutes, Williamson came back outside carrying a cooler and got into
Cremeen’s truck. Cremeen testified that as he backed up to leave, he observed flames
coming from the bedroom of the trailer. Cremeen yelled at Williamson to call 911, and he
asked Williamson if anyone was inside of the trailer. Williamson answered “Yes. My old
lady.”
¶6. Tiffany Miller testified that Gwyn and Williamson lived together in a trailer and were
in a romantic relationship. According to Miller, Gwyn called her a little over a week before
2
the fire and informed her that she and Williamson had gotten into a fight. Gwyn told Miller
that she had made plans to move out of the trailer and back to North Carolina, but she did not
want Williamson to know. Miller stated that a few days before the fire, she went over to the
trailer to help Gwyn pack. Gwyn told Miller that she planned to leave on Saturday, March
2, 2013, after Williamson left for work.
¶7. Investigator Sciple testified that on March 2, 2013, he received a call to assist on a fire
investigation at Williamson’s trailer. When he entered the trailer, Investigator Sciple stated
that he observed three or four suitcases in the living room, “like somebody was either
mov[ing] in or fixing to leave.” Investigator Sciple testified that when he entered the
bedroom, “[t]here was a body still on the bed,” and he described the body as “burnt beyond
recognition.” Investigator Sciple stated that he found a purse in the living room, next to the
suitcases, containing Gwyn’s driver’s license. However, he admitted that he “still could not
identify the person that was on the bed.”
¶8. Investigator Sciple testified that after his investigation of the scene, he determined the
cause of the fire to be arson. Investigator Sciple stated that the fire originated on the bed in
the bedroom, and an accelerant was used to make the material burn faster. Investigator
Sciple stated that through the course of his investigation, he learned that the owner of the
trailer was renting the property to Gwyn.
¶9. Deputy Adcock also testified that the fire originated in the bedroom. Deputy Adcock
specified that the fire started on the bed, and that whoever started the fire used an accelerant.
¶10. At the conclusion of Deputy Adcock’s testimony, the transcript reflects that
3
Williamson expressed his desire to enter a guilty plea. The trial court then adjourned the trial
and held a guilty plea hearing that afternoon.
¶11. At Williamson’s guilty plea hearing, the trial court asked Williamson if he was
“pleading guilty to killing this lady that’s involved in this case.” Williamson answered, “Yes,
sir.” The trial court also asked Williamson if he was pleading guilty to “[b]urning [the]
trailer while she was an occupant of the trailer.” Williamson again answered, “Yes, sir.”
The trial court accepted Williamson’s guilty plea to one count of manslaughter and one count
of arson and sentenced him to twenty years in the custody of the MDOC for manslaughter
and twenty years in the custody of the MDOC for arson.
¶12. On September 29, 2015, Williamson filed a petition to show cause, in which he
alleged that the trial court was denying him due process by failing to furnish him with a copy
of the record in his case. On October 14, 2015, Williamson filed a motion to amend his
petition to show cause or to clarify his demands. In his amended motion, Williamson
attacked the validity of his guilty plea and his conviction.
¶13. On November 18, 2015, the trial court, treating Williamson’s filing as a PCR motion,
entered an order denying Williamson relief. In its order, the trial court stated that it had
denied two prior PCR motions filed by Williamson and therefore found Williamson’s motion
to be “a successive writ and a duplicitous request.”
¶14. On April 7, 2016, Williamson filed another PCR motion, this time raising six grounds
for relief. The trial court entered an order on April 17, 2017, denying relief and dismissing
Williamson’s motion. The trial court held that Williamson’s current PCR motion was
4
procedurally barred as a successive writ, explaining that Williamson had sought
postconviction relief “on at least three prior occasions” and been denied. After
acknowledging that Williamson’s PCR motion was procedurally barred, the trial court also
found that Williamson’s claims of error lacked merit.
¶15. On May 10, 2017, Williamson filed his notice of appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16. When reviewing a trial court’s denial of a PCR motion, “we review the trial court's
findings of fact for clear error and its determinations of law de novo.” Wilkerson v. State,
89 So. 3d 610, 613 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). The petitioner bears the burden of showing
he is entitled to relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Shavers v. State, 215 So. 3d 502,
505 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).
DISCUSSION
¶17. In his PCR motion before the trial court, Williamson raised six grounds for relief.
However, in his appellate brief, Williamson only raises one assignment of error—the State
failed to meet its burden of proof to show that he committed a crime. Williamson
specifically claims that “the record is bare of any showing of corpus delecti.” In support of
his assertion, Williamson argues that the State failed to present any testimony or evidence
that established the identification of the body found in the trailer, whether the person found
in the bed was even deceased, or the cause of death.
¶18. Williamson’s appeal contains several procedural issues. The first procedural issue
before us involves Williamson’s assignment of error on appeal. In his PCR motion filed in
5
the trial court, Williamson asserted the following assignments of error: (1) his multi-count
indictment is illegal; (2) he was denied the right to a jury trial; (3) no factual basis existed for
the trial court to accept his guilty plea for arson; (4) the trial court abused its discretion by
stopping Williamson’s trial and thus subjected Williamson to double jeopardy; (5) the trial
court erred by allowing multiple punishments growing out of the same set of operative facts;
and (6) ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the only issue that Williamson raises
is that the State failed to meet its burden of proof to show that Williamson committed a
crime. Williamson failed to raise this issue in his PCR motion before the trial court, and he
cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. Fluker v. State, 17 So. 3d 181, 183 (¶5) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2009) (“[A] defendant who fails to raise an issue in his [PCR motion] before the trial
court may not raise that issue for the first time on appeal.”).1 We also find that Williamson
has abandoned the six issues presented in his PCR motion before the trial court. Id. at 182-
83 (¶4) (“Issues that are unsupported and not argued are abandoned and need not be
considered on appeal.”).
¶19. The State appears to interpret Williamson’s claim on appeal as an attack on whether
a factual basis existed for the trial court to accept Williamson’s guilty plea, and the State
bases its argument on appeal around this claim. In his PCR motion before the trial court,
Williamson did raise the issue of whether a factual basis existed for the trial court to accept
his guilty plea for arson. However, Williamson’s argument on appeal is entirely different.
1
In his appellate brief, Williamson also makes a vague suggestion that he was
arrested without probable cause. However, this argument did not appear in his PCR motion
before the trial court, and, as stated, Williamson cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.
Id. at 183 (¶5).
6
In fact, in his appellate brief, Williamson fails to mention that he pleaded guilty. We
recognize that in his reply brief, Williamson responds to the State’s argument that a factual
basis existed for the trial court to accept Williamson’s guilty plea, but Williamson then
directs his argument back to whether the State met its burden of proof.
¶20. By pleading guilty, Williamson waived his right to have the State prove each element
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Joiner v. State, 61 So. 3d 156, 158 (¶7) (Miss.
2011). The record reflects that, on appeal, Williamson does not challenge the validity of his
guilty plea. Furthermore, Williamson’s assertion on appeal that the State failed to meet its
burden of proof lacks merit.
¶21. Second, we recognize that in its order dismissing Williamson’s PCR motion, the trial
court held that the motion was barred as a successive writ. The Uniform Postconviction
Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA) imposes a bar against successive writs. See Miss. Code
Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015) (“[A]ny order dismissing the petitioner’s motion or
otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until
reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this article.”). However,
the UPCCRA provides an exception to the successive-writ bar if the petitioner can show:
[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, if it had been introduced at
trial, it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence.
Likewise excepted are those cases in which the petitioner claims that his
sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been
unlawfully revoked. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the petitioner
has filed a prior petition and has requested DNA testing under this article,
7
provided the petitioner asserts new or different grounds for relief related to
DNA testing not previously presented or the availability of more advanced
DNA technology.
Id.
¶22. We recognize that errors affecting fundamental rights are also excepted from the
UPRCCA’s procedural bars. Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶11) (Miss. 2015). “Only
four fundamental-rights exceptions have been expressly found to survive procedural bars:
(1) the right against double jeopardy; (2) the right to be free from an illegal sentence; (3) the
right to due process at sentencing; and (4) the right not to be subject to ex post facto laws.”
Carter v. State, 203 So. 3d 730, 731 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). The Mississippi Supreme
Court has clarified that “merely asserting a constitutional-right violation is insufficient to
overcome the procedural bars.” Fluker, 170 So. 3d at 475 (¶11). Additionally, “there must
at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim of a fundamental-constitutional-
rights violation.” Evans v. State, 115 So. 3d 879, 881 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
¶23. In the trial court’s order denying Williamson’s April 2016 PCR motion, the trial court
explained that Williamson had filed approximately three prior PCR motions, all of which the
trial court denied. The record before us contains only one other prior PCR motion filed by
Williamson — an October 2015 motion titled “Motion to Amend Petition to Show Cause or
to Clarify Petitioner’s Demands.” In this motion, which the trial court treated as a PCR
motion, Williamson asserted arguments similar to those set forth in his April 2016 PCR
motion; namely, that the trial court lacked a factual basis to accept his guilty plea, the trial
8
court abused its discretion by stopping Williamson’s trial and therefore subjected him to
double jeopardy, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The record reflects that in November
2015, the trial court entered an order denying relief, explaining that Williamson “ha[d] twice
been denied post[]conviction relief by this [c]ourt,” and therefore his October 2015 PCR
motion constituted “a successive writ and a duplicitous request.”
¶24. Our review of Williamson’s April 2016 PCR motion presently at issue before this
Court also reflects that Williamson failed to show that his constitutional-rights-violations
claims possessed any merit; accordingly, Williamson’s successive and duplicitous claims do
not survive the procedural bars of the UPCCRA. Fluker, 170 So. 3d at 475 (¶11).
¶25. After our review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Williamson’s
PCR motion as a successive writ.
¶26. AFFIRMED.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, FAIR, WILSON,
GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.
9