Brian Anthony Young v. State of Mississippi
221 So. 3d 1047
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Brian Young was convicted of murder by a Jackson County jury in April 2002 and sentenced to life; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal in Young v. State.
- Young previously received leave from the supreme court to file a PCR in 2006; that PCR was denied by the trial court and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2013 Young sought leave from the Mississippi Supreme Court to file a trial-court petition for DNA testing of a purported confession letter and envelope under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7; the supreme court dismissed the petition for leave, finding no arguable basis that DNA testing would likely produce more probative results or probably change the verdict or sentence.
- Despite the supreme-court denial of leave, Young filed a petition in the trial court in April 2014 seeking DNA and fingerprint testing; the trial court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Young had not obtained the required supreme-court permission.
- Young appealed the dismissal, arguing (1) the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his PCR without addressing an exception to the statute-of-limitations, (2) the trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, and (3) the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on testing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the PCR without determining if Young met the §99-39-5(2) exception | Young argued the court should assess whether he met the statutory exception to the three-year limitations period before dismissal | State argued Young lacked the prerequisite supreme-court permission so the trial court had no jurisdiction to reach statutory-exception issues | Court held jurisdictional bar prevented consideration of limitations exception; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Young’s PCR filed after direct appeal affirmance without supreme-court leave | Young contended the trial court could consider his petition for DNA testing despite the prior denial of leave | State argued Young needed supreme-court leave under §99-39-7 and the prior denial extinguished trial-court jurisdiction | Court held Young needed and failed to obtain supreme-court permission; trial court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
| Whether Young was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on DNA/fingerprint testing of the letter and envelope | Young requested an evidentiary hearing to establish entitlement to testing | State maintained the court could not reach merits or grant a hearing without jurisdiction and supreme-court leave | Court held no hearing was required because jurisdictional prerequisite (leave) was not met; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. State, 891 So. 2d 813 (Miss. 2005) (direct-appeal affirmance of conviction)
- Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (standard for leave to obtain postconviction DNA testing)
- Doss v. State, 126 So. 3d 1026 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (UPCCRA pleadings treated as PCR motions)
- Bradford v. State, 116 So. 3d 164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (need for supreme-court permission after direct-appeal affirmance)
- Campbell v. State, 75 So. 3d 1160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (jurisdictional nature of leave requirement)