PCR motion in Mississippi

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if the [circuit] court abused its discretion and the decision is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Green I, 242 So. 3d at 178 (¶5) (citing Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss.

2019We will affirm the denial or dismissal of a PCR motion “if the movant fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.” Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836, 839 (¶4) (Miss.

2013This Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR motion if the movant has failed to “demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.... ” Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122 (¶ 9) (Miss.1999) (quotation marks omitted).

2012We will affirm the circuit court’s summary dismissal of a PCR motion if, after reviewing the PCR motion de novo, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to “demonstrate ⅛ claim procedurally alive substantially showing denial of a state or federal right....’” Ivory v. State, 999 So.2d 420, 424 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (quoting Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122 (¶ 9) (Miss.1999)).

2016A 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)).

2016When 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.

2020Black attempts to overcome the procedural bar by arguing his PCR motion is excepted under Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 506 (¶9) (Miss. 2010), which held that “errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights are excepted from the procedural bars of the [Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act].” Black claims his due process rights were violated.

2019“Th[e] [reviewing] [c]ourt’s applicable standard of review when considering the denial of a [PCR motion] is well settled; th[e reviewing c]ourt will not disturb the factual findings of a trial court in denying the petition unless such findings are clearly erroneous.” Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 506 (¶8) (Miss. 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928, 932 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)).

2025The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that summary “dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a doubt that the [movant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 924 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).

2025The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that summary “dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a doubt that the [movant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 924 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).

2021When a time-barred PCR motion is filed, “the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633, 635 (¶8) (Miss.

2021When a time-barred PCR motion is filed, “the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633, 635 (¶8) (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Magee v. State, 340 So. 3d 297 , 300 (Miss. 2022) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844, 846 (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the [circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844, 846 (¶5) (Miss.

2016When reviewing the denial of a PCR motion, an appellate court, “will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 8) (Miss.2008).

2016When reviewing the denial of a PCR motion, an appellate court “will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 8) (Miss.2008).

2016Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Rev.2015) states: “If it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified.” “This Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR motion if the movant fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.” Dickens v. State, 119 So.3d 1141, 1143-44 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Robinson v. State, 19 So.

2015Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Rev.2015) states: “If it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified.” “This Court will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR motion if the movant fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.” Dickens v. State, 119 So.3d at 1141, 1143-44 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (quoting Robinson v. State, 19

2022“When a subsequent PCR motion [has been] filed, the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840, 843 (¶15) (Miss.

2020“When a subsequent PCR motion is filed, the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840, 843 (¶13) (Miss.

2022When reviewing a circuit court’s order denying a PCR motion, we “will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous . . . .” Lambert v. State, 941 So. 2d 804, 807 (¶14) (Miss. 2006) (quoting Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999)).

2018"When reviewing a lower court's decision to deny a [PCR motion, an appellate court] will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous." Brown v. State , 731 So.2d 595 , 598 (¶ 6) (Miss. 1999).

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Gunn v. State, 248 So. 3d 937, 941 (¶15) (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Gunn v. State, 248 So. 3d 937, 941 (¶15) (Miss.

2017“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Thinnes v. State, 196 So.3d 204, 207-08 (¶ 10) (Miss.

2017"When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Thinnes v. State , 196 So.3d 204 , 207-08 (¶ 10) (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if the trial court abused its discretion and the decision is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Green v. State, 242 So. 3d 176, 178 (¶5) (Miss.

2023“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if the trial court[’s] . . . decision is clearly erroneous[.]” Green v. State, 242 So. 3d 176, 178 (¶5) (Miss.

2016Callahan for the first time argues that he did not know he was pleading as a habitual offender, Callahan specifically claims that: (1) the State amended his indictment.to improperly charge him as a habitual offender, (2) the trial court improperly sentenced him as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev.2015), and (3) he did not know he was pleading guilty as a habitual offender. 1 In Fluker v. State, 17 So.3d 181, 183 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2009), this Court found that a defendant may not raise an issue on appeal that he failed to raise in his PCR motion before

2014Stamps did not raise this issue in his PCR motion. “[A petitioner] who fails to raise an issue in his motion for post-conviction relief before the trial court may not raise that issue for the first time on appeal.” Fluker, 17 So.3d at 183 (¶ 5).

2023“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Boyd v. State, 65 So. 3d 358, 360 (¶10) (Miss.

2017After reviewing Williams’s PCR petition, as well as “all files, records, transcripts, and correspondence pertaining to the judgment under attaek[,]” the circuit court filed an order on July 14, 2015, denying Williams’s PCR petition and finding no merit to each of his asserted claims, Aggrieved by the circuit court’s judgment, Williams appeals. 1 STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 4, ‘When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusion

2024When reviewing the trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, the appellate court will reverse the judgment only if the “factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Berry v. State, 230 So. 3d 360, 362 (¶3) (Miss.

2022In reviewing the trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, the appellate court will reverse the judgment only if the “factual findings are clearly erroneous.” Berry v. State, 3 Jamison’s defense counsel passed away in 2018. 4 230 So. 3d 360, 362 (¶3) (Miss.

2022Where a “movant fails to demonstrate ‘a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right[,]’” this Court “will affirm the summary dismissal of a PCR motion . . . .” Id. (quoting Wilkerson v. State, 89 So. 3d 610, 614 (¶7) (Miss.

2020We affirmed the ruling on appeal, finding that with regard to her attorneys’ failure to “discover[] exculpatory witnesses, . . . [Wilkerson] fail[ed] to plead this issue with the specific detail required to support a prima facie showing of prejudice.” Id. at 616 (¶24). 25 Therefore, because Wilkerson brought this specific claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in her prior PCR motion, we uphold the court’s finding that the claim is barred by res judicata.16 B.

2014In reviewing the dismissal of a PCR motion, we “will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Smith v. State, 118 So.3d 180, 182 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Holloway v. State, 31 So.3d 656, 657 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2010)).

2014“We review a circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion under a clearly-erroneous standard of review.” McLaurin v. State, 114 So.3d 811, 813 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Holloway v. State, 31 So.3d 656, 657 (¶5) (Miss.Ct.App.2010)). ¶ 9.

2019“Th[e] [reviewing] [c]ourt’s applicable standard of review when considering the denial of a [PCR motion] is well settled; th[e reviewing c]ourt will not disturb the factual findings of a trial court in denying the petition unless such findings are clearly erroneous.” Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 506 (¶8) (Miss. 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928, 932 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)).

2016Moore v. State, 986 So.2d 928, 932 (¶ 13) (Miss.2008). ¶ 6, Jones argues that the trial court abused its discretion by holding that his PCR motion was both time-barred and successive-writ barred.

2023Roberson also claims that his PCR motion should survive the statutory bars of the UPCCRA by showing “exceptional circumstances” that justify an exception, citing Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1174 (¶12) (Miss. 2015).

2022Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2020) provides that the trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.” “When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a motion for PCR, we will only disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous[.]” Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1172 (¶3) (Miss. 2015).

2013See Burrough v. State, 9 So.3d 368, 371 (¶ 6) (Miss.2009) (reviewing the dismissal of a PCR motion for abuse of discretion). .

2012Section 99-39-11(2) provides that a trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief[.]” See also Burrough, 9 So.3d at 371 (¶ 6).

2022“When a subsequent PCR motion is filed, the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” Stokes v. State, 199 So. 3d 745, 749 (¶10) (Miss.

2021“When a subsequent PCR motion is filed, the burden falls on the movant to show he has met a statutory exception.” Stokes v. State, 199 So. 3d 745, 749 (¶10) (Miss.

2014Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Supp.2013) provides that a PCR motion may be dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief[.]” “[D]ismissal of a PCR motion is proper where ‘it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” State v. Santiago, 773 So.2d 921, 923-24 (¶ 11) (Miss.2000) (quoting Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss.1991)).

2014“Under Section 99-39-11(2) of the Mississippi Code [ (Supp.2013) ], a trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for PCR, without having held an evi-dentiary hearing, when it is clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief....” State v. Santiago, 773 So.2d 921, 923-24 (¶ 11) (Miss.2000). “[Dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where ‘it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ” Id. at 924 (¶ 11) (quoting Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 18.

2022The supreme court panel found that Ellis’s claims regarding due process violations, comments on his post-Miranda silence, and publication of the victim’s recorded out-of-court interview to the jury “were raised and rejected at trial or on direct appeal, such that they are 1 See Jackson v. State, 67 So. 3d 725, 730 (¶17) (Miss. 2011) (“[I]f the prisoner’s conviction and sentence were directly appealed, and either the conviction was affirmed or the appeal dismissed by this Court, then he must file an application in this Court for leave to proceed in the trial court and include the proposed PCR m

2022See id. at 731 n.9 (“If a prisoner’s conviction and sentence were never directly appealed, then, pursuant to [s]ections 99-39-7 and 99-39-27, [the supreme court] is not permitted to entertain the prisoner’s PCR motion until it has been ruled upon by the [trial] court and appealed to this Court under [s]ection 99- 39-25.”).

2016A 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)).

2016A 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)).

2026We will affirm a court’s “summary dismissal of a defendant’s PCR motion ‘if he fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.’” Id. (quoting Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 845, 848 (¶7) (Miss.

2024We will affirm a court’s “summary dismissal of a defendant’s PCR motion ‘if he fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial of a state or federal right.’” Id. (quoting Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 845, 848 (¶7) (Miss.

2019“When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Purnell v. State, 126 So. 3d 949, 951 (¶4) (Miss.

2018"When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review." Purnell v. State , 126 So.3d 949 , 951 (¶ 4) (Miss.

2022Id.; see also Jackson, 178 So. 3d at 812 (¶22) (holding that where the defendant provided his own affidavit in support of his PCR motion, as well as an affidavit from his wife, stating that his counsel gave him erroneous advice about his eligibility for parole, the defendant “met the evidentiary burden required in order to obtain an evidentiary hearing”). ¶16.

2021See Jackson v. State, 178 So. 3d 807, 812 (¶18) (Miss Ct. App. 2014) (discussing a defendant who provided his own affidavit in support of his PCR motion, as well as an affidavit from his wife, stating that the defendant’s attorney told him the enhanced sentence would not prevent him from being eligible for parole); Thomas v. State, 881 So. 2d 912, 914 (¶4) (Miss.