12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Luckett v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428, 430 (Miss.1991). 1999Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428, 430 (Miss. 1991). | 2 | 2 |
Rowland v. Statered2 sentences2020Excluded from 1 Duncan had previously been convicted of the following felony crimes: shooting into an occupied dwelling, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit burglary, and burglary of a business. 2 the three-year time bar are errors affecting a “fundamental constitutional right.” Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 507 (¶12) (Miss. 2010). “[N]o discretion is afforded when deciding whether to except a claim involving a fundamental constitutional right from procedural bars.” Id. at (¶11). 2020Excluded from 1 Duncan had previously been convicted of the following felony crimes: shooting into an occupied dwelling, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit burglary, and burglary of a business. 2 the three-year time bar are errors affecting a “fundamental constitutional right.” Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 507 (¶12) (Miss. 2010). “[N]o discretion is afforded when deciding whether to except a claim involving a fundamental constitutional right from procedural bars.” Id. at (¶11). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2016The illegality he asserts is that his sentences should be served concurrently, not consecutively, because the “charges grew out of the same set of operative fact[s].” As support, he cites a pre-section 99-7-2 case — Thomas v. State, 474 So.2d 604, 606 (Miss.1985) (superseded by statute) — in which the supreme court expressed its disfavor of multicount indict-, ments. | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Blount v. State, 126 So.3d 927, 930 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2013); see also Bailey v. State, 65 So.3d 349, 350 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (“[T]he mere assertion of a constitutional-right violation does not suffice to overcome the three-year time bar.”). ¶ 6. | 1 | 1 |
Blount v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Blount v. State, 126 So.3d 927, 930 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2013); see also Bailey v. State, 65 So.3d 349, 350 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011) (“[T]he mere assertion of a constitutional-right violation does not suffice to overcome the three-year time bar.”). ¶ 6. | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Chandler v. State, 44 So.3d 442, 444 (¶ 8) (Miss.App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Sneed v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Sneed v. State, 722 So.2d 1255, 1257 (¶11) (Miss.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Cochran v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Cochran, 969 So.2d at 121 (¶ 4). ¶ 8. | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Stategreen1 sentence2006“The right to be free from an illegal sentence is a fundamental right....” Alexander v. State, 879 So.2d 512, 514 (¶9) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2005"Errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prohibit their consideration." Smith v. State, 477 So.2d 191, 195-96 (Miss.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Hires v. State, 882 So.2d 225, 228-29 (¶ 10)(Miss.2004); Kirk v. State, 798 So.2d 345 (¶ 6) (Miss.2000); Strickland v. State, 698 So.2d 1089, 1092 (¶ 9) (Miss. 1997). ¶ 7. | 1 | 1 |
Hires v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Hires v. State, 882 So.2d 225, 228-29 (¶ 10)(Miss.2004); Kirk v. State, 798 So.2d 345 (¶ 6) (Miss.2000); Strickland v. State, 698 So.2d 1089, 1092 (¶ 9) (Miss. 1997). ¶ 7. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Stategreen1 sentence2003McGleachie, 800 So.2d at 562 (¶ 2); Chancellor, 809 So.2d at 701 (¶ 4); Edwards, 839 So.2d at 579 (¶ 3); Graves, 822 So.2d at 1090 (¶ 3). | 1 | 1 |
Graves v. Stategreen1 sentence2003McGleachie, 800 So.2d at 562 (¶ 2); Chancellor, 809 So.2d at 701 (¶ 4); Edwards, 839 So.2d at 579 (¶ 3); Graves, 822 So.2d at 1090 (¶ 3). | 1 | 1 |
Chancellor v. Stategreen1 sentence2003McGleachie, 800 So.2d at 562 (¶ 2); Chancellor, 809 So.2d at 701 (¶ 4); Edwards, 839 So.2d at 579 (¶ 3); Graves, 822 So.2d at 1090 (¶ 3). | 1 | 1 |
McGleachie v. Stategreen1 sentence2003McGleachie, 800 So.2d at 562 (¶ 2); Chancellor, 809 So.2d at 701 (¶ 4); Edwards, 839 So.2d at 579 (¶ 3); Graves, 822 So.2d at 1090 (¶ 3). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cole v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kirk v. State
green
1 sentence2005See Hires v. State, 882 So.2d 225, 228-29 (¶ 10)(Miss.2004); Kirk v. State, 798 So.2d 345 (¶ 6) (Miss.2000); Strickland v. State, 698 So.2d 1089, 1092 (¶ 9) (Miss. 1997). ¶ 7. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sykes v. State
green
1 sentence2002However, our supreme court, in Sykes v. State , 757 So.2d 997 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2000), established what is now commonly referred to as the "prison mailbox rule" with the following ruling: A pro se prisoner's motion for post-conviction relief is delivered for filing under the UPCCRA and the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure when the prisoner delivers the papers to prison authorities for mailing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.