Carlos Boyd Smith a/k/a Carlos Smith v. State of Mississippi, 290 So.3d 1244

Carlos Boyd Smith was convicted of sexual battery by a jury on January 22, 2016, and sentenced to 22 years.
No timely direct appeal was filed after his conviction.
On June 2, 2017, Smith filed a pro se post-conviction petition seeking an out-of-time appeal.
The Stone County Circuit Court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding Smith was time-barred under M.R.A.P. 4(h)’s 180-day limit; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Smith petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court, which held that the trial court erred by failing to consider Smith’s petition under Mississippi Code § 99-39-5(2), because the petition was within the statute’s three-year filing window.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the circuit court to address the § 99-39-5(2) claim and procedural requirements on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant an out‑of‑time appeal because M.R.A.P. 4(h)’s 180‑day limit had passed	Smith argued his filing was a post‑conviction motion under § 99‑39‑5(2) and therefore timely within the three‑year window	State argued Rule 4(h)’s 180‑day limit precluded relief and thus the court lacked jurisdiction	Court held Rule 4(h) was inapplicable and the trial court erred by not considering Smith’s motion under § 99‑39‑5(2); reversed and remanded
Whether a § 99‑39‑5(2) post‑conviction petition can confer jurisdiction to seek an out‑of‑time appeal	Smith contended § 99‑39‑5(2) authorizes out‑of‑time appeal petitions within three years and the circuit court must consider them	State maintained the procedural time limits under appellate rules control and bar relief	Court held a petitioner may seek an out‑of‑time appeal via § 99‑39‑5(2) within three years; trial court must determine on remand whether procedural requirements for relief are met

Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (standard of review for post‑conviction relief: factual findings reviewed for clear error, legal questions de novo)
Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 2008) (supports standard of review statements)
Lambert v. State, 941 So. 2d 804 (Miss. 2006) (legal‑questions de novo review precedent)
Minnifield v. State, 585 So. 2d 723 (Miss. 1991) (recognizes a petitioner may seek an out‑of‑time appeal under post‑conviction procedures)
Ragland v. State, 586 So. 2d 170 (Miss. 1991) (court may remand to allow circuit court to address procedural questions first)