Cosner v. State, 111 So. 3d 111

Cosner pled guilty on 2/6/2009 to (1) possession with intent to sell >500g marijuana, (2) possession with intent to sell >100 alprazolam units, and (3) failure to register as a sex offender.
He filed a first PCR motion on 12/7/2009, which he withdrew on the morning of the scheduled evidentiary hearing (8/13/2010).
He then filed federal habeas corpus on 11/15/2010 and did not pursue state court remedies further.
On 10/7/2011 he filed a second PCR motion raising the same non-violent/offense-day-for-day arguments but naming MDOC and Christopher Epps as defendants.
The circuit court dismissed the second PCR as barred as a successive writ under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) and because inmate classification is within MDOC’s administrative purview.
The Court affirms, holding inmate classification issues are administrative and not properly brought in a PCR proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second PCR was barred as successive relief	Cosner argues his sentence issues warrant relief.	State contends §99-39-23(6) bars successive motions and classification is administrative.	Yes; second PCR barred as successive under §99-39-23(6).
Whether inmate classification is reviewable via PCR	Cosner seeks review of MDOC classifications.	MDOC classification is administrative; not proper PCR matter.	Classification matters fall within MDOC; affirmed dismissal.

Madden v. State, 75 So.3d 1130 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (standard for reviewing PCR dismissals; de novo when questions of law)
Johnson v. State, 962 So.2d 87 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (burden on petitioner to show no procedural bar exists)
Crawford v. State, 867 So.2d 196 (Miss.2003) (procedural bars in successive PCR motions)
Burns v. State, 933 So.2d 329 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (administrative remedies for inmate classification; use MDOC process)
Lewis v. State, 761 So.2d 922 (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (classification decisions belong to MDOC administrative purview)