Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2026)
Judicial examination of original motion; dismissal; filing answer; court ordered testing of biological evidence
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) The original motion, together with all the files, records, transcripts and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack, shall be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is assigned.
- (2) 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.
- (3) If the motion is not dismissed under subsection (2) of this section, the judge shall order the state to file an answer or other pleading within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate and, in cases in which the petitioner's claim rests on the results of DNA testing of biological evidence, order the testing of the biological evidence.
- (4) To facilitate DNA testing of biological evidence, if granted under subsection (3) and if the interests of justice require, the judge may order:
- (a) The state to locate and provide the petitioner with any document, note, log or report relating to items of physical evidence collected in connection with the case, or to otherwise assist the petitioner in locating items of biological evidence that the state contends have been lost or destroyed;
- (b) The state to take reasonable measures to locate biological evidence that may be in its custody and to prepare an itemized inventory of such evidence;
- (c) The state to assist the petitioner in locating evidence that may be in the custody of a public or private hospital, public or private laboratory or other facility;
- (d) Both parties to reveal whether any DNA or other biological evidence testing was previously conducted without knowledge of the other party; and
- (e) Both parties to produce laboratory reports prepared in connection with DNA testing, as well as the underlying data and the laboratory notes, if evidence had previously been subjected to DNA testing.
- (5) If the court orders DNA testing of biological evidence under subsection (3) and evidence for such testing is located in accordance with subsection (4), such testing shall be conducted by a facility mutually agreed upon by the petitioner and the state and approved by the court, or, if the parties cannot agree, the court shall designate the testing facility and provide parties with a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the choice of laboratory issue. The court shall impose reasonable conditions on the testing to protect the parties' interests in the integrity of the evidence and the testing process.
- (6) If a state or county forensics laboratory performs DNA testing of biological evidence under this article, the state shall bear the costs of such testing upon a finding of the petitioner's indigence.
- (7) If testing is performed at a private laboratory, the court may require either the petitioner or the state to pay for the testing, as the interests of justice require.
- (8) If the state or county forensics laboratory does not have the ability or resources to conduct the type of DNA testing to be performed, the state shall bear the costs of testing at a private laboratory that has such capabilities.
- (9) The court, in its discretion, may make such other orders as may be appropriate in connection with a granting of testing under subsection (3). These include, but are not limited to, designating:
- (a) The type of DNA analysis to be used;
- (b) The testing procedures to be followed;
- (c) The preservation of some portion of the sample for testing replication;
- (d) Additional DNA testing, if the results of the initial testing are inconclusive or otherwise merit additional scientific analysis;
- (e) The collection and DNA testing of elimination samples from third parties; or
- (f) Any combination of these.
- (10) The court may order additional testing, paid for in accordance with subsections (6) through (8), upon a showing by the petitioner that the comparison of a DNA profile derived from the biological evidence at the scene of the crime for which he was convicted could, when compared to the DNA profiles in the SDIS or CODIS database systems, provide evidence that raises a reasonable probability that the trier of fact would have come to a different outcome by virtue of that comparison demonstrating the possible guilt of a third party or parties.
- (11) This section shall not be applicable where an application for leave to proceed is granted by the Supreme Court under Section 99-39-27.
- (12) Proceedings under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Section 99-19-42.
Laws, 1984, ch. 378, § 6; Laws, 1995, ch. 566, § 4; Laws, 2009, ch. 339, § 5, eff. 3/16/2009.
Amended by Laws, 2015, ch. 452, SB 2159, 19, eff. 7/1/2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 434
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Reeder v. State, 783 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2001).
Reeder v. State, 783 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2001). “Reeder appeals that order contending (1) that he was denied due process by the trial court's failure to follow the procedural mandates of Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2000), relying on M.”
Gregory Tyler Moore v. State of Mississippi, 248 So. 3d 845 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). ““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 trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR petition.”
Lori Griffin v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 337 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (3) (Rev. 2015) (“If [a] motion [for post-conviction relief] is not dismissed [summarily], the judge shall order the state to file an answer or other pleading within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge…”
Donald Keith Smith v. State of Mississippi, 149 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. 2014). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2) (Rev. 2007).”
Holt v. State, 650 So. 2d 1267 (Miss. 1994). “Citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (1972), Holt contends its provisions are mandatory and, not being adhered to, urges this Court to reverse and render or reverse and remand his case for further proceedings.”
Turner v. State, 590 So. 2d 871 (Miss. 1991). “The circuit court judge, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 , examined and summarily denied and dismissed the motion.”
Myers v. State, 583 So. 2d 174 (Miss. 1991). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (1), (2) gives a court all the guidelines it needs to evaluate such post-conviction relief motions: § 99-39-11.”
State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (Supp.1999) (emphasis added).”
Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2) (Rev. 2007).”
Walton v. State, 752 So. 2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “In the case at bar, it appears that before Walton even has to contend with whether the State's responses were proper he has to overcome the language of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2) (Supp.1999) which states that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed…”
Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (Miss. 2003). “Additionally, in order to sustain summary dismissal, of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp.1997), the allegation must be alleged with specificity.”
Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “2011) (quoting *839 Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 2010)).”
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(1): 30 cases
Ward v. State, 879 So. 2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
Mayhan v. State, 26 So. 3d 1072 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
Caston v. State, 949 So. 2d 852 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
Austin v. State, 971 So. 2d 1286 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
Holland v. State, 956 So. 2d 322 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(11): 1 case
Rickey Sturkey v. State of Mississippi, 174 So. 3d 870 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2): 213 cases
Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776 (Miss. 2003). “Additionally, in order to sustain summary dismissal, of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp.1997), the allegation must be alleged with specificity.”
Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “2011) (quoting *839 Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 2010)).”
Burrough v. State, 9 So. 3d 368 (Miss. 2009).
Readus v. State, 837 So. 2d 209 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
Derrick Stokes v. State of Mississippi, 199 So. 3d 745 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(3): 5 cases
Chase v. State, 873 So. 2d 1013 (Miss. 2004).
State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921 (Miss. 2000). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (Supp.1999) (emphasis added).”
Walton v. State, 752 So. 2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “In the case at bar, it appears that before Walton even has to contend with whether the State's responses were proper he has to overcome the language of Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 (2) (Supp.1999) which states that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed…”
Davis v. State, 29 So. 3d 788 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
Howard v. State, 49 So. 3d 79 (Miss. 2010).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(4): 2 cases
Mitchell v. State, 809 So. 2d 672 (Miss. 2002).
Larry Mitchell v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2001).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(6): 1 case
Howard v. State, 49 So. 3d 79 (Miss. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.