267 So. 3d 793
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Clayton Bateman was indicted (2010) and convicted (2012 jury trial) of sexual battery and lustful touching of his two minor daughters; sentences were affirmed on direct appeal in Bateman v. State.
- In Feb 2011 (pretrial) Bateman, pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition claiming the State lacked jurisdiction because a 1990 amendment repealed the constitutional boundary provision; he also challenged officers’ legitimacy for not producing oaths.
- The circuit court denied the pretrial habeas petition at a hearing the day before trial; Bateman was tried and convicted and later affirmed on appeal by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- Four years after conviction, Bateman filed a "Motion for Relief from Judgment" under Miss. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and (6), reasserting the jurisdictional/fraud arguments and alleging the judgment was void.
- The circuit court treated the filing as a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion under the UPCCRA and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because Bateman did not obtain the Mississippi Supreme Court’s permission under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7.
- Bateman appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court properly treated and dismissed the filing as a PCR motion and lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.
Issues
| Issue | Bateman's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bateman’s "Motion for Relief from Judgment" is a post-conviction collateral attack requiring leave of the Mississippi Supreme Court | Motion was a continuation/response to his pretrial habeas petition and not a PCR filing | The motion was filed after conviction and on its face sought to void the judgment; UPCCRA governs post-conviction relief and Bateman needed leave under § 99-39-7 | Motion is a PCR filing; because Bateman did not obtain permission from the supreme court, circuit court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
| Whether the State lacked jurisdiction over Bateman’s criminal proceedings due to repeal of the constitutional boundary provision (1990 amendment) | The 1990 repeal of Art. 2 § 3 eliminated state boundaries and thus courts lacked jurisdiction; conviction is void and judgment obtained by fraud | Jurisdictional challenges post-conviction must be pursued under the UPCCRA; the asserted constitutional history does not avoid procedural requirements and the circuit court found the substantive claim without merit | Court declined to reach merits due to lack of jurisdiction; Bateman must seek leave from the supreme court to litigate such claims further |
Key Cases Cited
- Doss v. State, 19 So. 3d 690 (Miss. 2009) (standard of review for denial/dismissal of PCR and procedural requirements)
- Bateman v. State, 125 So. 3d 616 (Miss. 2013) (supreme court decision affirming Bateman’s convictions and sentences)
- Smith v. Banks, 134 So. 3d 715 (Miss. 2014) (limitations on habeas corpus after indictment/conviction and that habeas cannot be used to avoid trial)
- Cortez v. State, 9 So. 3d 445 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (circuit court lacks jurisdiction over PCR when leave from supreme court under § 99-39-7 not obtained)
- Edmond v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 783 So. 2d 675 (Miss. 2001) (UPCCRA repealed post-conviction habeas and created motion framework for post-conviction relief)