Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2026)

Grounds for relief; time limitations; "biological evidence" defined

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) Any person sentenced by a court of record of the State of Mississippi, including a person currently incarcerated, civilly committed, on parole or probation or subject to sex offender registration for the period of the registration or for the first five (5) years of the registration, whichever is the shorter period, may file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence, a motion to request forensic DNA testing of biological evidence, or a motion for an out-of-time appeal if the person claims:
- (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;
- (b) That the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;
- (c) That the statute under which the conviction and/or sentence was obtained is unconstitutional;
- (d) That the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law;
- (e) That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice;
- (f) That there exists biological evidence secured in relation to the investigation or prosecution attendant to the petitioner's conviction not tested, or, if previously tested, that can be subjected to additional DNA testing, that would provide a reasonable likelihood of more probative results, and that testing would demonstrate by reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such forensic DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution.
- (g) That his plea was made involuntarily;
- (h) That his sentence has expired; his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked; or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody;
- (i) That he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal; or
- (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, proceeding or remedy.

(2) A motion for relief under this article shall be made within three (3) years after the time in which the petitioner's direct appeal is ruled upon by the Supreme Court of Mississippi or, in case no appeal is taken, within three (3) years after the time for taking an appeal from the judgment of conviction or sentence has expired, or in case of a guilty plea, within three (3) years after entry of the judgment of conviction. Excepted from this three-year statute of limitations are those cases in which the petitioner can demonstrate either:
- (a)
  - (i) That there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence; or
  - (ii) That, even if the petitioner pled guilty or nolo contendere, or confessed or admitted to a crime, there exists biological evidence not tested, or, if previously tested, that can be subjected to additional DNA testing that would provide a reasonable likelihood of more probative results, and that testing would demonstrate by reasonable probability that the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence if favorable results had been obtained through such forensic DNA testing at the time of the original prosecution.
- (b) Likewise excepted are those cases in which the petitioner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. Likewise excepted are filings for post-conviction relief in capital cases which shall be made within one (1) year after conviction.

(3) This motion is not a substitute for, nor does it affect, any remedy incident to the proceeding in the trial court, or direct review of the conviction or sentence.

(4) Proceedings under this article shall be subject to the provisions of Section 99-19-42.

(5) For the purposes of this article:
- (a) "Biological evidence" means the contents of a sexual assault examination kit and any item that contains blood, semen, hair, saliva, skin tissue, fingernail scrapings, bone, bodily fluids or other identifiable biological material that was collected as part of the criminal investigation or may reasonably be used to incriminate or exculpate any person for the offense. This definition applies whether that material is catalogued separately, such as on a slide, swab or in a test tube, or is present on other evidence, including, but not limited to, clothing, ligatures, bedding or other household material, drinking cups, cigarettes or other items;
- (b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid.

Laws, 1984, ch. 378, § 3; Laws, 1995, ch. 566, § 3; Laws, 2000, ch. 569, § 12; Laws, 2009, ch. 339, § 2, eff. 3/16/2009.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 826 cases (132 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Cole v. State, 608 So. 2d 1313 (Miss. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cole v. State, 608 So. 2d 1313 (Miss. 1992). · cites it 10× “The State has responded that (1) Cole's attack on the 1957 judgment was made for the purpose of impacting the validity of his death sentence, (2) Cole's claims are barred by the three year statute of limitations of the UPCCRA, Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2) (Supp. 1991), (3) the…”

Richard Chapman v. State of Mississippi, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 5× “” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (Rev. 2007). Once the time period, set by statute, has expired, the petitioner’s right to proceed is extinguished.”

Charles Ray Crawford v. State of Mississippi, 218 So. 3d 1142 (Miss. 2016). · cites it 4× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(a)(i) (Rev.”

Havard v. State, 86 So. 3d 896 (Miss. 2012). · cites it 6× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(b) (Rev.2007).”

Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 5× “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2) (Supp. 2014) (emphasis added).”

Grayson v. State, 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). · cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(1); 99-39-9; 99-39-27(9) (Supp.”

Edmond v. Mississippi Dept. of Corr., 783 So. 2d 675 (Miss. 2001). · cites it 5× “Edmond asserts that he did not have an opportunity to interview with his parole officer and that he was not afforded a preliminary hearing. Without written notice, Edmond's parole was revoked for one year, and to date, it has not been reinstated.”

Richard Chapman v. State of Mississippi, 250 So. 3d 429 (Miss. 2018). · cites it 7× “at 208-09 (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(a)(ii) (Rev.”

Lori Griffin v. State of Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 337 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “The Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act permits a prisoner to file “a motion for an out-of-time appeal if the person claims .”

Eric LaQuinne Brown v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 325 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2) (Supp. 2014); Miss.”

Jones v. State, 119 So. 3d 323 (Miss. 2013). · cites it 4× “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(2), 99-39-23(6) (Supp.”

White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Supp.2010). ¶ 7.”

Show all 826 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1) — 38 cases

Grayson v. State, 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(1); 99-39-9; 99-39-27(9) (Supp.”

Jordan v. Fisher, 823 F.3d 805 (5th Cir. 2016).

Burns v. State, 933 So. 2d 329 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Jackson v. State, 67 So. 3d 725 (Miss. 2011).

Brown v. State, 90 So. 3d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(a) — 7 cases

Wiley v. State, 842 So. 2d 1280 (Miss. 2003).

McLamb v. State, 974 So. 2d 935 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Gray v. State, 819 So. 2d 542 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

Austin v. State, 863 So. 2d 59 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Keys v. State, 67 So. 3d 783 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(b) — 1 case

Marco S. Raine v. State of Mississippi, 151 So. 3d 216 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(c) — 2 cases

Fulgham v. State, 47 So. 3d 698 (Miss. 2010).

Gross v. State, 852 So. 2d 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(d) — 1 case

Freshwater v. State, 794 So. 2d 274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(e) — 4 cases

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

Wilson v. State, 760 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

Curry v. State, 855 So. 2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Johns v. State, 925 So. 2d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(f) — 3 cases

Ducote v. State, 970 So. 2d 1309 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Austin v. State, 863 So. 2d 59 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Dallas v. State, 994 So. 2d 862 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(g) — 8 cases

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

Morris v. State, 66 So. 3d 716 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Stanley v. Turner, 846 So. 2d 279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Lewis v. State, 761 So. 2d 922 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

Maston v. State, 768 So. 2d 354 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(h) — 4 cases

Dorsey v. State, 986 So. 2d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Maston v. State, 750 So. 2d 1234 (Miss. 1999).

DeLoach v. State, 890 So. 2d 934 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

Denton v. State, 762 So. 2d 814 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(i) — 1 case

Keys v. State, 67 So. 3d 783 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) — 269 cases

Jones v. State, 119 So. 3d 323 (Miss. 2013). “See Miss.Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(2), 99-39-23(6) (Supp.”

White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). “Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Supp.2010). ¶ 7.”

Edmond v. Mississippi Dept. of Corr., 783 So. 2d 675 (Miss. 2001). “Edmond asserts that he did not have an opportunity to interview with his parole officer and that he was not afforded a preliminary hearing. Without written notice, Edmond's parole was revoked for one year, and to date, it has not been reinstated.”

Adams v. State, 954 So. 2d 1051 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Crosby v. State, 16 So. 3d 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(2000) — 2 cases

Pickle v. State, 791 So. 2d 204 (Miss. 2001).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(a) — 18 cases

Brown v. State, 90 So. 3d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1205 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

Johnston v. State, 172 So. 3d 756 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

McGriggs v. State, 117 So. 3d 626 (Miss. 2012).

Frederick Emanuel Scurlock v. State of Mississippi, 147 So. 3d 894 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(a)(i) — 12 cases

Charles Ray Crawford v. State of Mississippi, 218 So. 3d 1142 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(a)(i) (Rev.”

William Dwayne Salter v. State of Mississippi, 184 So. 3d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

Eric LaQuinne Brown v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 325 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2) (Supp. 2014); Miss.”

Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 304 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

McCoy v. State, 111 So. 3d 673 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(a)(ii) — 1 case

Pickle v. State, 115 So. 3d 896 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)(b) — 6 cases

Havard v. State, 86 So. 3d 896 (Miss. 2012). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (2)(b) (Rev.2007).”

Bell v. State, 66 So. 3d 90 (Miss. 2011).

Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Antonio Vashon Smith v. State of Mississippi, 196 So. 3d 986 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

Johnnie Wheeler v. State of Mississippi, 164 So. 3d 501 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(a) — 2 cases

Austin v. State, 734 So. 2d 234 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

Burton v. State, 970 So. 2d 229 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(a)(g) — 1 case

Walker v. State, 910 So. 2d 584 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(d) — 1 case

Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (Miss. 2000).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(e) — 1 case

Brewer v. State, 819 So. 2d 1169 (Miss. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(f) — 1 case

Johnson v. State, 817 So. 2d 619 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(h) — 1 case

Coleman v. State, 804 So. 2d 1032 (Miss. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l) — 1 case

Brown v. State, 83 So. 3d 459 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l)(a) — 1 case

Chapell v. State, 107 So. 3d 1003 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l)(e) — 4 cases

Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 304 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Tyler v. State, 19 So. 3d 663 (Miss. 2009).

Hoskins v. State, 812 So. 2d 1043 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

Cotten v. State, 817 So. 2d 639 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l)(f) — 1 case

Scott v. State, 817 So. 2d 642 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l)(g) — 4 cases

Tipton v. State, 150 So. 3d 82 (Miss. 2014).

Wrenn v. State, 121 So. 3d 913 (Miss. 2013).

Way v. Miller, 919 So. 2d 1036 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Allen v. Musgrove, 109 F. App'x 678 (5th Cir. 2004).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(l)(h) — 6 cases

Lott v. State, 115 So. 3d 903 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Sellers v. State, 52 So. 3d 426 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Walters v. State, 21 So. 3d 1166 (Miss. 2009).

Havard v. State, 83 So. 3d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

Johnnie Wheeler v. State of Mississippi, 164 So. 3d 501 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

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.