Daniel Paul Copple v. State of Mississippi
196 So. 3d 189
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Daniel P. Copple was convicted (two murders, one aggravated assault) in Lowndes County; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Copple filed a complaint for discovery in chancery court seeking the court reporter’s backup audio tapes, alleging the official transcript did not match his recollection and that appellate counsel failed to correct it.
- Copple stated he intended to use any discrepancies to support an ineffective-assistance claim and a future post-conviction-relief (PCR) motion.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing the pleading was in substance a PCR motion and the chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Copple had not obtained Mississippi Supreme Court leave to file PCR after direct appeal.
- The chancery court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Copple appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the discovery request was subsumed by the UPCCRA and thus fell outside chancery jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a chancery complaint seeking court-reporter backup tapes is an independent discovery action or a disguised PCR motion | Copple: complaint is a common-law discovery/request for public records to obtain tapes for verification; not a collateral attack | State: complaint is functionally a PCR motion because it seeks materials to support collateral attack on convictions, so UPCCRA governs | Held: complaint is cognizable under UPCCRA and therefore a PCR matter, not an independent chancery action |
| Whether chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the complaint | Copple: chancery has equity/power to order discovery or public-record production | State: UPCCRA provides exclusive procedure for collateral relief; chancery lacks jurisdiction over PCR claims after direct appeal without Supreme Court leave | Held: chancery lacked jurisdiction; dismissal proper because Copple had not obtained required leave |
| Whether Copple had a statutory right under the Mississippi Public Records Act to the reporter’s tapes | Copple: tapes are public records subject to inspection under Miss. Code Ann. § 25-61-1 | State: court reporter and backup tapes are not "public body" records and are not judicial records for public-inspection purposes | Held: issue not raised below (procedurally barred) and, on the merits, backup tapes are not public records or subject to the common-law right to inspect |
| Whether the chancery court should have transferred the case to circuit court | Copple: implied that transfer or relief might be available | State: transfer would circumvent UPCCRA requirement for Supreme Court leave after direct appeal | Held: transfer would improperly bypass jurisdictional leave requirement; dismissal (not transfer) was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. State, 75 So. 3d 1030 (Miss. 2011) (pleadings cognizable under UPCCRA treated as PCR motions; chancery lacks equity jurisdiction over such claims)
- Robinson v. United States, 565 A.2d 964 (D.C. 1989) (motion for access to tape treated as preparation for collateral attack; not an independent common-law access action)
- Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505 (Miss. 1989) (no right for prisoner to institute independent action for a free transcript or documents outside UPCCRA)
- Rotwein v. Holman, 529 So. 2d 173 (Miss. 1988) (certified transcript is prima facie correct; certification is sole evidence of proceedings below)
- In re Pratt, 511 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2007) (backup tapes are not original trial records filed with the court and are not part of the public record)