Allery Hopson a/k/a Allery Deljun Hopson a/k/a Allery D. Hopson v. State of Mississippi, 300 So.3d 1063

Hopson was indicted in 2006 in Union County for two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon; he later absconded and was arrested in Shelby County, Tennessee.
On September 17, 2014, Hopson pled guilty to both robbery counts and received concurrent 30-year sentences with five years suspended and five years post-release supervision each.
Hopson filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) motion on August 13, 2018 — nearly four years after his guilty plea and outside the UPCCRA three-year limitations period.
The circuit court dismissed the PCR motion without a hearing as procedurally barred; Hopson appealed claiming his grounds implicated fundamental constitutional rights.
Hopson’s asserted grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, that his original indictment was resolved by nolle prosequi (rendering later proceedings invalid), and denial of due process/extradition hearing under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Hopson’s claims untimely, unsupported by evidence, and that the IAD did not apply because Mississippi is not a party to it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Procedural Bar	Hopson conceded untimeliness but argued fundamental-rights exceptions apply so PCR should be considered.	The State argued the PCR was time-barred under UPCCRA absent a recognized exception.	PCR dismissed as procedurally barred; Hopson failed to allege a recognized exception with supporting evidence.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Hopson alleged counsel abandoned duty, failed reasonable investigation, and permitted plea despite defective extradition/indictment.	The State argued ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily time-barred and Hopson presented no extraordinary circumstances or evidentiary support.	Claim barred and without merit; no extraordinary circumstances and no evidentiary support in record.
Indictment / Nolle Prosequi	Hopson claimed original robbery indictment was nolle prossed and not re‑indicted, so conviction rested on invalid proceedings.	The State noted Hopson offered only assertions and cited no record evidence linking nolle prosequi to the robbery indictments.	Court found the claim unsupported by the record and therefore without merit.
Due Process / Extradition (IAD)	Hopson asserted he was entitled to an IAD hearing in Tennessee before transfer and that failure required dismissal.	The State argued the IAD is inapplicable because Mississippi is not a party; thus no IAD-based remedy exists.	Court held IAD claims fail because Mississippi is not a party to the IAD; claim lacks merit.

Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (establishes that errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights may be excepted from PCR procedural bars)
Green v. State, 235 So. 3d 1438 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (identifies categories of fundamental-rights exceptions to UPCCRA time bars)
Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) (holds ineffective-assistance claims may escape procedural bars only in extraordinary circumstances)
Goul v. State, 223 So. 3d 813 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (ineffective-assistance claims are generally time-barred absent extraordinary circumstances)
Evans v. State, 115 So. 3d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (mere assertions of constitutional violations do not trigger exceptions without some basis in the record)
Smothers v. State, 741 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 1999) (addresses inapplicability of IAD-based relief where statutory or interstate prerequisites are not met)