Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2026)

Evidentiary hearing; summary judgment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Laws, 1984, ch. 378, § 10, eff. 4/17/1984.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2022 · leading case: Neal v. State, 525 So. 2d 1279 (Miss. 1988).
Neal v. State, 525 So. 2d 1279 (Miss. 1988). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Supp. 1986).”
Reeder v. State, 783 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 2× “If the trial judge goes beyond the materials enumerated in § 99-39-11 and receives affidavits or other evidence from the State, he may enter summary judgment against the petitioner under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2000). It provides "[i]f the motion is not dismissed at a…”
Gregory A. Thinnes v. State of Mississippi, 196 So. 3d 204 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (Rev.2015). 3 .”
Myers v. State, 583 So. 2d 174 (Miss. 1991). “Still, nothing said here should be taken to intimate any view on the merits, or even that Myers' claim may survive summary judgment; see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Supp. 1990) and Rule 56, Miss.”
Moore v. Ruth, 556 So. 2d 1059 (Miss. 1990). “Nothing said here should be taken to intimate any view on the merits, or even that Moore's claim may survive summary judgment, see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Supp. 1989) and Rule 56, Miss.”
Sanders v. State, 846 So. 2d 230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Rev.2000).”
Roland v. State, 666 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 1995). “Evidentiary Hearing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (1) provides: "If the motion is not dismissed at a previous stage of the proceeding, the judge, after the answer is filed and discovery, if any, is completed, shall, upon a review of the record, determine whether an evidentiary…”
Hymes v. State, 703 So. 2d 258 (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “After that opportunity was afforded, the *260 State contends under Miss.Code § 99-39-19 (Rev. 1994), the trial court had discretionary power to dismiss Hymes' motion for relief.”
Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-19(1)(1994). "If an evidentiary hearing is required the judge may appoint counsel for a petitioner who qualifies for the appointment of counsel under section 99-15-15, Mississippi Code of 1972.”
Mowdy v. State, 638 So. 2d 738 (Miss. 1994). “II Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Supp. 1992), vests the circuit courts of this State with the authority to grant motions for summary judgment in post conviction relief proceedings "when it appears from the record that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant…”
Wright v. State, 577 So. 2d 387 (Miss. 1991). “The trial court upon reconsideration of the motion, answer, and attached exhibits pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (1) (Supp. 1984) concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required and issued its order denying and dismissing the motion.”
Brewer v. State, 819 So. 2d 1169 (Miss. 2002). “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-19. ¶ 21. Although this Court has previously held that one cannot raise a new claim on a motion for rehearing, in this instance, the evidence in support of this new claim is the DNA test results which were not previously available.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19(1): 11 cases
Watts v. State, 981 So. 2d 1034 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
Rowland v. Britt, 867 So. 2d 260 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
McMillian v. State, 774 So. 2d 454 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
Stovall v. State, 770 So. 2d 1019 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
Hardiman v. State, 904 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19(1)(1994): 1 case
Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-19(1)(1994). "If an evidentiary hearing is required the judge may appoint counsel for a petitioner who qualifies for the appointment of counsel under section 99-15-15, Mississippi Code of 1972.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19(2): 2 cases
Sanders v. State, 846 So. 2d 230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-19 (2) (Rev.2000).”
Williams v. Castilla, 585 So. 2d 761 (Miss. 1991).
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.