prison mailbox rule in Mississippi

2025“The prison mailbox rule states that a prisoner’s motion is delivered for filing on the date that the prisoner submitted the papers to prison authorities for mailing.” Id. 4 Washington’s motion invoked subsections (a) and (j), which provide: (a) That the conviction or the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of Mississippi; .... (j) That the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any grounds of alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other writ, motion, petition, proce

2021“Under the prison mailbox rule, a pleading is deemed timely if it is deposited in the prison mail system within the time required.” Sykes v. State, 757 So. 2d 997, 1000 (¶12) (Miss. 2000).

2020The prison-mailbox rule states that a prisoner’s pro se PCR motion “is timely if it is deposited in the prison mail system within the time required.” Sykes v. State, 757 So. 2d 997, 1000 (¶12) (Miss. 2000); accord Gaston v. State, 817 So. 2d 613, 616 (¶8) (Miss.

2020See Gaston, 817 So. 2d at 616 (¶¶6-7) (“We hold that in Mississippi the prison mailbox rule extends to all actions under the UPCCRA[] and appeals in those actions.”).

2009Gaston v. State, 817 So.2d 613, 616 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2002); see also Melton v. State, 930 So.2d 452, 455 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006).

2008In Melton v. State, 930 So.2d 452, 454-55 (¶¶ 2, 7-8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006), this Court found that a trial court erred because the petition was not barred due to the prison mailbox rule.

2022Nevertheless, “[b]ecause of the unique circumstances presented in this case, we opt to exercise our discretion under Rule 2(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the thirty-day filing requirement to the extent [Ellis’s] filing may have been untimely under the prison mailbox rule.” Vance, 941 So. 2d at 227 (¶6).

2008“When challenging an appeal as untimely, the State bears the burden of proving that, under the terms of the prison mailbox rule, the prisoner’s notice of appeal was not ‘filed’ within the thirty-day window of Rule 4.” Id. at 1246-47 (¶4) (citing Sykes v. State, 757 So.2d 997, 1000-01 (¶ 14) (Miss.2000)); Vance v. State, 941 So.2d 225, 227 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted).

2003Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir.1998).

2000Spotville v. Cain , 149 F.3d 374 , 378 (5th Cir. 1998). ¶ 13.

2025Ct. App. 2012) (“Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s motion is considered filed when he delivers the papers to prison authorities for mailing”); cf. Jewell v. State, 946 So. 2d 810, 813 (¶9) (Miss.

2009In Jewell v. State, 946 So.2d 810 (Miss.Ct.App.2006), this Court discussed the effect of the prison mailbox rule and the State’s burden of proof as follows: [W]hen seeking dismissal for an untimely appeal, the burden is on the State to prove that the prisoner has, indeed, failed to comply with Rule 1(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, taking into consideration the prison mailbox ‘rule.

2000Benbow v. State , 614 So.2d 398 (Miss. 1993).

2000Benbow v. State, 614 So.2d 398 (Miss.1993).

2025Scruggs v. State, 102 So. 3d 1172, 1175 (¶9) (Miss.

2020See Forkner v. State, 227 So. 3d 404 , 406 ¶ 6 (Miss. 2017) (reversing and vacating a trial court judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction).2 1 We have recognized that the prison mailbox rule applies to the jurisdictional thirty- day requirement, so “[a] prisoner satisfies this rule if he submits his complaint for mailing with the prison officials within this time period.” Clay v. Epps, 953 So. 2d 264, 265 (¶5) (Miss.

2020White, 59 So. 3d at 636 (¶12) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)) (other citation omitted).

2020See Forkner v. State, 227 So. 3d 404 , 406 ¶ 6 (Miss. 2017) (reversing and vacating a trial court judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction).2 1 We have recognized that the prison mailbox rule applies to the jurisdictional thirty- day requirement, so “[a] prisoner satisfies this rule if he submits his complaint for mailing with the prison officials within this time period.” Clay v. Epps, 953 So. 2d 264, 265 (¶5) (Miss.

2020White, 59 So. 3d at 636 (¶12) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)) (other citation omitted).

2019Small v. State, 141 So. 3d 61, 65 (¶8) (Miss.

2014Rather, citing Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503, 506-08 (¶¶ 7-12) (Miss.2010), he claims that the procedural bar is inapplicable, as his claim involves a violation affecting his fundamental constitutional rights. ¶ 13.

2009“Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is effectively filed under Rule 4 when the prisoner delivers his notice of appeal to the proper prison authorities for mailing.” Carroll v. State, 3 So.3d 767, 769 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citation omitted). ¶ 5.

2008“When challenging an appeal as untimely, the State bears the burden of proving that, under the terms of the prison mailbox rule, the prisoner’s notice of appeal was not ‘filed’ within the thirty-day window of Rule 4.” Id. at 1246-47 (¶4) (citing Sykes v. State, 757 So.2d 997, 1000-01 (¶ 14) (Miss.2000)); Vance v. State, 941 So.2d 225, 227 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citation omitted).

2008While it is true that “this Court may suspend Rule 4, for good cause shown, and allow out-of-time appeals in criminal cases ... [t]he party seeking an out[-]of[-]time appeal carries the burden of persuasion regarding the lack of a timely notice.” Andrews v. State, 932 So.2d 61, 62 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing M.R.A.P.4).

2007Id. at 1092 (¶ 8).

2002Massaline v. Williams, 274 Ga. 552 , 554 S.E.2d 720, 722 (2001).

2002Massaline v. Williams, 274 Ga. 552 , 554 S.E.2d 720, 722 (2001).