Conley v. State
Decision Date | 26 February 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 2011-M-01006,2011-M-01006 |
Parties | GLEN L. CONLEY JR. Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Serial: 229852
Before the Court is the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this Court to Vacate an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose, filed by Glen L. Conley Jr.
Conley was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 781 (Miss. 2001). This Court affirmed, and the mandate issued on July 26, 2001. Id. at 808. Since then, he has filed three applications, which were denied. Order, Conley v. State, No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 29, 2015); Order, Conley v. State, No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 26, 2012); Order, Conley v. State, No. 2001-M-01902 (Miss. Aug. 14, 2002).
Here, he asserts three claims: (1) his sentence is illegal; (2) the indictment was defective; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective. We find the following.
First, an illegal-sentence claim is an exception to the procedural bars. Rowland v. State, 98 So. 3d 1032, 1035-36 (Miss. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Carson v. State
, 212 So. 3d 22 (Miss. 2016). To merit waiving the bars, however, the claim must have some arguable basis. Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). We find Conley's claim does not.
Second, a defective-indictment claim does not meet any recognized exception to the procedural bars. Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1174-75 (Miss. 2015); Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027, 1031 (Miss. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Pitchford v. State
, 240 So. 3d 1061 (Miss. 2017); Bell v. State, 123 So. 3d 924, 925 (Miss. 2013); Rowland, 98 So. 3d at 1035-36. See also Bevill v. State, 669 So. 2d 14, 17 (Miss. 1996); Brown v. State, 187 So. 3d 667, 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). And even if it did, Conley's claim has no arguable basis.
Finally, in exceptional circumstances, an ineffective-assistance claim might be excepted from the procedural bars. Chapman, 167 So. 3d at 1174-75; Bevill, 669 So. 2d at 17; Brown, 187 So. 3d at 671. Yet Conley's claim lacks any arguable basis to merit waiving them.
After due consideration, we find the application should be denied. Further, Conley is hereby warned that any future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary sanctions but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514, at *2 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (warning of sanctions, including in forma pauperis restrictions); En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514, at *2 (Miss. Apr. 11, 2019) (restricting in forma pauperis status).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this Court to Vacate an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of February, 2020.
/s/ James D. Maxwell II
KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
GLEN L. CONLEY, JR.
v.
¶1. Although Glen L. Conley's application for post-conviction relief does not merit relief, I disagree with this Court's warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis.
¶2. This Court seems to tire of reading motions that it deems "frivolous" and imposes monetary sanctions on indigent defendants. The Court then bars those defendants, who in all likelihood are unable to pay the imposed sanctions, from future filings. In choosing to prioritize efficiency over justice, this Court forgets the oath that each justice took before assuming office. That oath stated in relevant part, "I . . . solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich . . . ." Miss. Const. art. 6, § 155.
To continue reading
Request your trial