Jackson v. State

Decision Date27 September 2007
Docket NumberNo. 2005-CT-01580-SCT.,2005-CT-01580-SCT.
Citation965 So.2d 686
PartiesJoseph Leon JACKSON, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Imhotep Alkebu-Lan, for Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Jacob Ray, for Appellee.

EN BANC.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

EASLEY, Justice, for the Court.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

¶ 1. Joseph Leon Jackson, Jr. pleaded guilty to armed robbery and aggravated assault on October 17, 2001.2 A jury was empaneled and returned a sentence of life imprisonment for Jackson in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Jackson appealed the judgment to this Court, whereupon it was assigned to the Mississippi Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case on September 9, 2003. This Court further denied Jackson's writ of certiorari on July 29, 2004.

¶ 2. Jackson then filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), which the trial court denied on July 29, 2005. The court found that Jackson was procedurally barred from bringing his claim pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(2) (Supp.2006).

¶ 3. Jackson sought post-conviction relief from this Court, which again assigned the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeals' decision, Jackson filed a petition for certiorari, which this Court granted. On certiorari, we address the following assignments of error:

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY HOLDING THAT JACKSON'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WAS BARRED

BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY RULING THAT JACKSON'S CLAIM FAILED ON THE MERITS.

FACTS

¶ 4. On July 14, 2001, Jackson, along with two others, robbed the Piggly Wiggly in Winona, Mississippi, at gunpoint. The group stole more than $1,000 in cash. During the robbery, Jackson shot and wounded a Piggly Wiggly employee. Jackson was arrested and charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault. Jackson pleaded guilty to both charges, thereby waiving his right to a trial by jury. The court found that Jackson's guilty pleas were made voluntarily, freely, and knowingly, and accepted the pleas.

¶ 5. A jury was empaneled to determine Jackson's sentence on October 18, 2001. The jury returned a verdict, sentencing Jackson to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. After filing an appeal which was dismissed, Jackson filed a PCR petition in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County on July 19, 2005. The trial court denied Jackson's petition, finding that the claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations and that the claims also did not meet any of the exceptions listed under the statute. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev.2007). The trial court further considered the merits of Jackson's claim, finding that Jackson's sentence was indeed proper and that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. On post-conviction relief, we will not disturb the trial court's findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (Miss.1999). However, if questions of law are raised, then the applicable standard of review is de novo. Id. "The imposition of a sentence is within the discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not review the sentence, if it is within the limits prescribed by statute." Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 756 (Miss.1991) (citing Reed v. State, 536 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss.1988)); Boyington v. State, 389 So.2d 485 (Miss. 1980).

I. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

¶ 7. Jackson's judgment of conviction for armed robbery was entered in October 2001.3 Jackson filed his petition for post-conviction relief on July 19, 2005. Generally, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(2) provides a three-year statute of limitations for filing a petition for post-conviction relief. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(1)-(2) provides:

(1) Any prisoner in custody under sentence of a court of record of the State of Mississippi who 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 his plea was made involuntarily;

(g) That his sentence has expired; his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked; or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody;

(h) That he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal; or

(i) 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; may file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment or sentence, or for an out-of-time appeal.

(2) A motion for relief under this article shall be made within three (3) years after the time in which the prisoner'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 prisoner can demonstrate either 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. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner 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.

Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1) (Rev.2007).

¶ 8. In Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888, 893 (Miss.1992), this Court stated that "[t]he petitioner carries the burden of demonstrating that his claim is not procedurally barred." (Citing Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-21(6) (Supp.1991); Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313, 320 (Miss.1988)). "However, `an alleged error should be reviewed, in spite of any procedural bar, only where the claim is so novel that it has not previously been litigated, or, perhaps, where an appellate court has suddenly reversed itself on an issue previously thought settled.'" Lockett, 614 So.2d at 893 (quoting Irving v. State, 498 So.2d 305, 311 (Miss.1986)).

¶ 9. In Chancy v. State, 938 So.2d 251, 253 (Miss.2006), this Court held that in the case of newly discovered evidence, post-conviction relief is available even where an individual pleaded guilty and untimely filed the petition for post-conviction relief, stating:

In Bell v. State, 759 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 1999), we granted an evidentiary hearing on the basis of newly discovered evidence even though Bell, who had pled guilty, had not timely filed his PCR petition. The Court of Appeals itself also recognized the newly discovered evidence exception in the context of guilty pleas in the following cases: Gaston v. State, 922 So.2d 841 (Miss.Ct.App.2006); Sykes v. State, 919 So.2d 1064 (Miss.Ct App.2005); Garlotte v. State, 915 So.2d 460 (Miss.Ct.App.2005); Freshwater v. State, 914 So.2d 328 (Miss.Ct.App.2005); McGriggs v. State, 877 So.2d 447 (Miss. Ct.App.2003); Donnelly v. State, 841 So.2d 207 (Miss.Ct.App.2003); Wright v. State, 821 So.2d 141 (Miss.Ct.App.2000).

¶ 10. On writ of certiorari, Jackson argues that the trial court did not have legal authority to have him tried by a jury on sentencing after it accepted Jackson's guilty plea to armed robbery. Jackson asserts that the trial court should have imposed the sentence after accepting his plea of guilty, rather than allowing a jury to determine the appropriate sentence. The State argues that the trial court did not have authority to sentence Jackson to a life sentence and only a jury possessed such authority, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-3-79; therefore, the trial court empaneled a jury to determine sentencing after the trial court accepted Jackson's plea of guilty.4 The trial court denied Jackson's petition for post-conviction relief, finding it was untimely filed and barred by the statute of limitations.

¶ 11. If the trial court did not have authority to empanel a jury for sentencing in a non-death penalty capital case, then Jackson's failure to timely raise the illegal sentence and failure to object to the sentencing procedure would not render this assignment of error procedurally barred by the statute of limitations. In Ivy v. State, 731 So.2d 601, 602 (Miss.1999), we stated, "[a]lthough, the Appellant filed his petition ten (10) years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired, petitions alleging an illegal sentence are not subject to the time bar." See Twillie v. State, 892 So.2d 187, 191 (Miss.2004) ("Twillie was asserting that he received an illegal sentence — a claim which could not be procedurally barred").

¶ 12. We find that Jackson's petition for post-conviction relief was not untimely filed, as Jackson asserted that he received an illegal sentence.

II. MERIT OF JACKSON'S POST-CONVICTION CLAIM.

¶ 13. In Taggart v. State, 957 So.2d 981, 991 (Miss.2007), the Court stated:

Other than the death penalty statutory sentencing scheme in capital murder cases, there...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Cozart v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 25 Mayo 2017
    ...of the trial court, and this Court will not review the sentence, if it is within the limits prescribed by statute." Jackson v. State , 965 So.2d 686, 688 (Miss. 2007) (citing Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 756 (Miss.1991) ). However, the issue of whether the application of a statute cons......
  • Whatley v. State, 2011–CP–01548–COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 10 Octubre 2013
    ... ... 16. This argument is without merit. It is well established that sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court and not subject to appellate review if it is within the limits prescribed by statute. Jackson v. State, 965 So.2d 686, 688 ( 6) (Miss.2007) (quoting Reynolds v. State, 585 So.2d 753, 756 (Miss.1991)). Whatley pleaded guilty and was sentenced for the sale, not possession, of Dilaudid. The trial court sentenced Whatley as a subsequent drug offender under section 4129147, and not as a ... ...
  • Rye v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 2023
    ... ... "disagree[d]" with this Court's interpretation ... of a statute in a prior case regarding standing to file a PCR ... motion. Subsequently, "in accordance with the ... supreme court's ruling in Howell," ... we modified an opinion on rehearing in Jackson v ... State, 287 So.3d 1060, 1062 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App ... 2019), finding that the defendant had "standing to bring ... his PCR motion[.]" (Emphasis added). More recently, we ... recognized the supreme court's holding in ... Chancy-SCT and noted that the "circuit ... ...
  • Mitchell v. Progressive Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 27 Septiembre 2007
    ... ...         8. Thus, [Mitchell's] claim was not timely filed and is barred by the statute of limitations, and the [c]omplaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted ...         In response to Progressive's motion to dismiss, Mitchell asserted that his complaint ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT