17 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rowland v. Statered2 sentences2023Rowland I, 42 So. 3d at 508 (¶15). 16 ¶28. 2012The supreme court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the ground that “errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights are excepted from the procedural bars of the [Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act] UP-CCRA.” Id. at 506 (¶ 9). | 3 | 3 |
Lee v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The trial court held on remand that, while it previously had determined that the first two statements “were inadmissible because [of] Keller’s physical/mental condition, it did not find then and does not find now that there was coercion by the officers.” As the Court previously has written, “[d]etermining whether a confession is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed ‘unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.’ ” Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 495-96 (¶ 87) (Miss. 2009The trial court held on remand that, while it previously had determined that the first two statements “were inadmissible because [of] Keller’s physical/mental condition, it did not find then and does not find now that there was coercion by the officers.” As the Court previously has written, “[d]etermining whether a confession is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed ‘unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, 41 or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.’” Snow v. State, 800 So. 2d 472, 495-96 (¶ 87) (Mis | 2 | 2 |
Snow v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The trial court held on remand that, while it previously had determined that the first two statements “were inadmissible because [of] Keller’s physical/mental condition, it did not find then and does not find now that there was coercion by the officers.” As the Court previously has written, “[d]etermining whether a confession is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed ‘unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.’ ” Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 495-96 (¶ 87) (Miss. 2009The trial court held on remand that, while it previously had determined that the first two statements “were inadmissible because [of] Keller’s physical/mental condition, it did not find then and does not find now that there was coercion by the officers.” As the Court previously has written, “[d]etermining whether a confession is admissible is a finding of fact which is not disturbed ‘unless the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, 41 or the decision was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.’” Snow v. State, 800 So. 2d 472, 495-96 (¶ 87) (Mis | 2 | 2 |
Mitchener v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Id. at 1194-95 (¶18). | 1 | 1 |
Richard Chapman v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2023This Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing because “it [was] impossible to address the merits of [the defendant’s] claims and his assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 700 (¶19) (quoting Chapman, 167 So. 3d at 1173 (¶8)). ¶18. | 1 | 1 |
Spearman v. Stategreen1 sentence2019After remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing as to whether the transcript was accurate, this Court was “unable to conclude from the record and . . . the hearing that Spearman’s constitutional right to testify was adequately protected.” Id. at 34 (¶13). ¶32. | 1 | 1 |
Dizon v. Stategreen2 sentences2019After remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve whether Dizon had been advised of his right to testify and whether he had effectively waived it, id. at 998 (¶10), the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed Dizon’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. 2019Id. at 1001 (¶27). | 1 | 1 |
Kenny Walton v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2017Specifically, we “reverse[d] and remand[ed] to the trial court to make findings of fact on whether Williams learned of Matthews’s and McKnight’s October 2008 statements [to the investigator,] whether [Williams] reviewed these with Walton prior to entering his guilty plea, and the effect any non-disclosure had on Walton’s plea.” Walton, 165 So. 3d at 528 (¶44). ¶7. 2017Specifically, we “reverse[d] and remand[ed] to the trial court to make findings of fact on whether Williams learned of Matthews’s and McKnight’s October 2008 statements [to the investigator,] whether [Williams] reviewed these with Walton pri- or to entering his guilty plea, and the effect any non-disclosure had on Walton’s plea.” Walton, 165 So.3d at 528 (¶ 44). ¶7. | 1 | 1 |
Donald Keith Smith v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2015Id. at 1031 (¶9). | 1 | 1 |
Jasso v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Jasso v. State, 655 So.2d 30, 35 (Miss.1995) (remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of prejudice because both the State’s and the defendant’s showing was so weak). 2008See Jasso v. State, 655 So.2d 30, 35 (Miss.1995) (remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of prejudice because both the State’s and the defendant’s showing was so weak). | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Garner v. State, 928 So.2d 911, 915 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Vittitoe v. Stategreen1 sentence1992See also Vittitoe v. State, 556 So.2d 1062 (Miss. 1990) (conviction and sentence based on guilty plea reversed where trial court found that defendant was not aware of mandatory minimum sentence at time of plea). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Culberson v. State
green
2 sentences2024Incident to what would now be treated as a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, the Supreme Court remanded “the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Culberson told his attorney [that] he wanted to testify . . . and whether the attorney disregarded the request and refused to permit Culberson to testify . . . .” Id. 2019Incident to what would now be treated as a motion for post-conviction collateral relief, the Supreme Court remanded “the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Culberson told his attorney [that] he wanted to testify . . . and whether the attorney disregarded the request and refused to permit Culberson to testify . . . .” Id. | 2 | 2019–2024 |
Dunn v. Reed
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 518 . ¶ 13. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Myers v. State
green
1 sentence2007We express no opinion on the merits of Mitchener's PCR and hold only that his allegations in the PCR, along with the affidavits of himself and four others, are sufficient to "require further inquiry in the expanded setting of an evidentiary hearing." Myers, 583 So.2d at 175 . ¶ 19. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence2003This Court in White v. State, 751 So.2d 481 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing based on the petitioner's claims that he was erroneously informed of his parole eligibility. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.