Espinoza v. State, 073119 MSSC, 2016-M-00176

• Opinion Judge: JAMES D. MAXWELL II, JUSTICE
• Party Name: RODOLFO ESPINOZA A/K/A RODOLFO MEDRANO ESPINOZA Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent
• Judge Panel: TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DISMISS: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J. KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, KITCHENS, P.J.,
• Case Date: July 31, 2019
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

RODOLFO ESPINOZA A/K/A RODOLFO MEDRANO ESPINOZA Petitioner

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

No. 2016-M-00176

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 31, 2019

EN BANC ORDER

JAMES D. MAXWELL II, JUSTICE

This matter is before the Court on the Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court filed pro se by Rodolfo Espinoza, who challenges the validity of his enhanced sentence. The mandate in Espinoza's direct appeal issued in 1999. The petition is subject to the time bar. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5 (Rev. 2015). Further, Espinoza has filed at least four prior petitions for post-conviction relief, so this filing is successive. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27 (Rev. 2015). After due consideration, the Court finds that Espinoza has presented no arguable basis for his claim and that the petition should be denied. See Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). Further, the Court finds that the petition is frivolous. Espinoza is warned that future filings deemed frivolous could result in monetary sanctions or in restrictions on his ability to file applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. Order, Dunn v. State, 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court on Post-Conviction Collateral Relief filed pro se by Rodolfo Espinoza is denied. SO ORDERED, this the 31st day of July, 2019.

TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.

TO DISMISS: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ.

KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.

KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

¶1. Although Rodolfo Espinoza's application for post-conviction relief does not merit relief, I disagree with the Court's finding that the application is frivolous and with the warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis.¹

¶2. This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean one filed in which the movant has "no hope of success." Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995). However, "though a case may be weak or 'light-headed,' that is not sufficient to label it frivolous." Calhoun v. State, 849 So.2d 892, 897 (Miss. 2003). In his application for post-conviction relief, Espinoza made reasonable arguments that his sentence is illegal. As such, I disagree with the Court's determination that Espinoza's application is frivolous.

¶3. Additionally, I disagree with this Court's warning that future filings may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions on a criminal...