Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The purpose of this article is to revise, streamline and clarify the rules and statutes pertaining to post-conviction collateral relief law and procedures, to resolve any conflicts therein and to provide the courts of this state with an exclusive and uniform procedure for the collateral review of convictions and sentences. Specifically, this article repeals the statutory writ of error coram nobis, supersedes Rule 8.07 of the Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice and abolishes the common law writs relating to post-conviction collateral relief, including by way of illustration but not limitation, error coram nobis, error coram vobis, and post-conviction habeas corpus, as well as statutory post-conviction habeas corpus. The relief formerly accorded by such writs may be obtained by an appropriate motion under this article. The enactment of this article does not affect any pre-conviction remedies.

(2) Direct appeal shall be the principal means of reviewing all criminal convictions and sentences, and the purpose of this article is to provide prisoners with a procedure, limited in nature, to review those objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors which in practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.

Laws, 1984, ch. 378, § 2, eff. 4/17/1984.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 121 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (1) (Rev. 2007).”

Knox v. State, 75 So. 3d 1030 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (Rev.2007). “The purpose [of the UPCCRA] is to revise, streamline and clarify the rules and statutes pertaining to post-conviction relief law and procedures, to resolve any conflicts therein and to provide the courts of this state with an exclusive and…”

James D. Koch v. Steve W. Puckett, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-3(2), 99-39-21 (Supp.”

Clayton Paul Bateman v. State of Mississippi, 267 So. 3d 793 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “2001) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (Rev. 2015) ) (emphasis added).”

Charles Ray Crawford v. Earnest Lee, 213 So. 3d 44 (Miss. 2016). · cites it 4× “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (1) (Rev. 2015) (emphases added).”

Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3(1)(1994). The Act provides "a procedure, limited in nature, to review those objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors which in practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.”

Evans v. State, 485 So. 2d 276 (Miss. 1986). · cites it 2× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (1) (Supp. 1985).”

Cole v. State, 666 So. 2d 767 (Miss. 1995). “Issues Procedurally Barred Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (2) (1994) provides that "[d]irect appeal shall be the principal means of reviewing all criminal convictions and sentences .”

Dalton Trigg v. Steven Farese, Sr., 266 So. 3d 611 (Miss. 2018). “" See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (1) (Rev. 2015).”

Cabello v. State, 524 So. 2d 313 (Miss. 1988). “In conclusion, the Court wishes to draw counsel's attention to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (2) (Supp. 1987), which reads: Direct appeal shall be the principal means of reviewing all criminal convictions and sentences, and the purpose of this chapter is to provide prisoners with a…”

Grayson v. State, 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2) (Rev.2007). Grayson claims that he had a right to the *126 effective assistance of counsel during his first PCR proceedings and that he was denied that right.”

Crawford v. State, 867 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 2003). “1988) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2) (Supp.2003)).”

Show all 121 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(1) — 17 cases

Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (1) (Rev. 2007).”

Ivory v. State, 999 So. 2d 420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Nelson v. Bingham, 116 So. 3d 172 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Lyons v. State, 990 So. 2d 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Creel v. State, 944 So. 2d 891 (Miss. 2006).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(1)(1994) — 1 case

Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3(1)(1994). The Act provides "a procedure, limited in nature, to review those objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors which in practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2) — 24 cases

James D. Koch v. Steve W. Puckett, Superintendent of Mississippi State Penitentiary, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990). “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-3(2), 99-39-21 (Supp.”

Crawford v. State, 867 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 2003). “1988) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2) (Supp.2003)).”

Simon v. State, 857 So. 2d 668 (Miss. 2003).

Thorson v. State, 994 So. 2d 707 (Miss. 2007).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(2)(1994) — 1 case

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.