truth claim in Mississippi

2022There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived.” Stovall v. State, 873 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (¶7) (Miss.

2021To find an exception to the bar, “there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim . . . .” Id. (quoting Stovall v. State, 873 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (¶7) (Miss.

2022There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶11) (Miss. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶7.

2022There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶11) (Miss. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 ¶12.

2020Our supreme court has determined, however, that “merely asserting a constitutional-right violation is insufficient to overcome the procedural bars. ‘There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.’” Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (¶12) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Crosby v. State, 16 So. 3d 74, 79 (¶10) (Miss.

2017"There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the [procedural bar] will be waived." Crosby v. State , 16 So.3d 74 , 79 (¶ 10) (Miss.

2021But “there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633, 636 (¶11) (Miss.

2021Yet, “there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Id. (quoting White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633, 636 (¶11) (Miss.

2020But to merit waiving the procedural bars, "[t]here must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim .... " Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471,475 (Miss. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010)).

2020Our supreme court has determined, however, that “merely asserting a constitutional-right violation is insufficient to overcome the procedural bars. ‘There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.’” Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (¶12) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Crosby v. State, 16 So. 3d 74, 79 (¶10) (Miss.

2021“There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Id. (emphasis omitted).

2019Still, “[t]here must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” White, 59 So. 3d at 636 (¶11) (citing Chandler, 44 So. 3d at 444 (¶8)).

2021Further, “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.

2021Rather, “there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted); see also Hays v. State, 282 So. 3d 714 , 719 (¶17) (Miss.

2022As the Mississippi Supreme Court recognized in Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶11) (Miss. 2015), “merely asserting a constitutional-right violation is insufficient to overcome the procedural bars.” “[T]here must at least appear to be some basis 10 for the truth of the claim of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation.” Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d 1239, 1242 (¶10) (Miss.

2020However, “merely asserting a constitutional-right violation is insufficient to overcome the procedural bars[;] . . . there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim of a fundamental- constitutional-rights violation.” Nichols, 265 So. 3d at 1241 (¶10).

2018"There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived." Ross v. State , 87 So.3d 1080 , 1082 (¶ 8) (Miss.

2016“There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived.” Id. (quoting Ross v. State, 87 So.3d 1080, 1082 (¶ 8) (Miss.

2016“There must at least appear to be some -basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Id.

2015Mere assertions are insufficient, as “[t]here must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” Cummings, 130 So.3d at 132 (¶ 7) (citations omitted).

2022Ct. App. 2020). “[T]o survive the UPCCRA’s procedural bars, there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation.” Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 845, 853 (¶21) (Miss.

2021Although misinformation could be the basis of an ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claim, “there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation.” Moore v. State, 248 So. 3d 845, 853 (¶21) (Miss.

2017Ct. App. 2008) (noting that since affidavits were “hearsay and contained no first[]hand knowledge of any fact,” they “carried no weight”). ¶21. “[T]o survive the UPCCRA’s procedural bars, ‘there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim’ of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation.” Ducksworth v. State, 134 So. 3d 792, 795 (¶5) (Miss.

2017Ct. App. 2008) (noting that since affidavits were "hearsay and contained no first[ ]hand knowledge of any fact," they "carried no weight"). ¶ 21. "[T]o survive the UPCCRA's procedural bars, 'there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim' of a fundamental-constitutional-rights violation." Ducksworth v. State , 134 So.3d 792 , 795 (¶ 5) (Miss.

2020Figueroa, as the PCR movant, “bears the burden of demonstrating that he has met an exception.” McComb v. State, 135 So. 3d 928, 932 (¶13) (Miss.

2020Harris, as the PCR movant, “bears the burden of demonstrating that he has met an exception.” McComb, 135 So. 3d at 932 (¶13). ¶19.

2015See Rowland, 42 So.3d at 506; Smith, 149 So.3d at 1031 (“Because Smith’s second motion for PCR alleges a violation of his fundamental right not to be convicted while incompetent, we will address the merits of his argument.”).

2012“There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived.” Id.; see also Rowland, 42 So.3d at 508 (¶ 14) (“[A]s the protection against double jeopardy is a fundamental right, we will not apply a procedural bar[.]”). ¶ 9.

2019Mays v. State, 228 So. 3d 946, 948 (¶5) (Miss.

2018Furthermore, "to find an exception to the successive-writ bar, 'there must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim' a fundamental constitutional rights violation." Mays v. State , 228 So.3d 946 , 948 (¶ 5) (Miss.

2010There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived.” Cochran v. State, 969 So.2d 119, 121 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056, 1058 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2004)). ¶ 6.

2008However, "[t]here must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the limitation period will be waived." Cochran v. State , 969 So.2d 119 , 121 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2007).

2022“The standard of competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining competency to stand trial.” Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431, 435 (¶13) (Miss.

2020Bell, 207 So. 3d at 707-08 (¶6) (brackets omitted).

2020Accordingly, although we have applied the time-bar to PCR motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, as in Graham v. State, 151 So. 3d 242, 246 (¶10) (Miss.

2019As the appellant, Hays “has the duty to make more than mere assertions and should set forth reasons for his arguments and cite authorities in their support.” Walker v. State, 823 So. 2d 557, 562-63 (¶13) (Miss.

2019Further, “the movant[] bears the burden of proving an exception applies to the UPCCRA’s procedural bars.” Gunn, 248 So. 3d at 942 (¶19) (citing Brandon v. State, 108 So. 3d 999 , 1004 n.3, 1006 (¶¶12, 23) (Miss.

2019Because Smith alleges an illegal sentence, his claim is not procedurally barred for failure to raise it at his guilty plea and sentencing hearing. 8 See also Brooks v. State, 46 So. 2d 94, 97 (Miss. 1950) (“Constitutional rights in serious criminal cases rise above mere rules of procedure.

2017Young acknowledges that his sentence is legal today in light of Bester v. State , 188 So.3d 526 , 529-30 (¶¶ 7-10) (Miss. 2016), where the Mississippi Supreme Court held that statutes that permit the trial court to sentence a defendant to "any term" include sentences of life imprisonment.

2017Young acknowledges that his sentence is legal today in light of Bester v. State, 188 So. 3d 526, 529-30 (¶¶7-10) (Miss. 2016), where the Mississippi Supreme Court held that statutes that permit the trial court to sentence a defendant to “any term” include sentences of life imprisonment.

2016There must at least appear to be some basis for the truth of the claim before the procedural bar will be waived.” (brackets, quotation marks omitted)); Sanders v. State, 179 So.3d 1190, 1192-93 (¶ 9) (Miss.