Deriera Magee v. State of Mississippi
2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 713
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Deriera Magee pleaded guilty in 2000 (possession) and 2001 (possession with intent to distribute); combined sentences included terms of incarceration followed by concurrent post-release supervision (PRS).
- Magee was released from custody in April 2008 to begin PRS but was arrested in March 2009; the circuit court revoked the eight-year PRS term tied to the 2000 conviction on July 21, 2009.
- A field officer had earlier filed a petition to terminate PRS for the 2001 conviction in May 2009, stating Magee had met PRS conditions; the record contains no evidence that the 2000 PRS had been terminated.
- Magee filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) on September 5, 2012, claiming unlawful revocation (double jeopardy, false arrest/imprisonment) and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Pearl River County circuit court dismissed the PCR as procedurally time-barred; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the PCR lacked merit on the substance even as it concluded the unlawful-revocation claim is excepted from the UPCCRA three-year bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of PCR | Magee argued revocation claim is excepted from the 3-year UPCCRA limit, so his 2012 filing is timely. | State/court: circuit court held motion time-barred under section 99-39-5(2); concurrence argued the 3-year catch-all (§15-1-49) applies so motion untimely. | Majority: unlawful-revocation claims are excepted from §99-39-5(2)’s 3-year bar (motion not time-barred under UPCCRA); concurrence: §15-1-49 applies—claim untimely. Court affirms dismissal on merits. |
| Whether PRS revocation was unlawful (double jeopardy/false imprisonment) | Magee claimed PRS had effectively ended (pointing to termination petition for 2001 PRS), so revocation of 2000 PRS violated rights. | State: record contains no evidence that the 2000 PRS had been terminated; revocation proper. | Held: no record support that 2000 PRS was terminated; revocation not unlawful. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Magee contended counsel failed to present the 2001 PRS termination petition at revocation. | State: petitioner must show more than conclusory allegations and prejudice; no evidence of prejudice or that the petition applied to 2000 PRS. | Held: claim fails—Magee offered only conclusory allegations and no showing of prejudice. |
| Applicable statute-of-limitations framework for unlawful-revocation claims | Magee: UPCCRA expressly excepts unlawful-revocation claims from the §99-39-5(2) time-bar, so those claims are not time-barred under UPCCRA. | Concurrence/State (alternative): no specific limitations period exists for such civil actions; §15-1-49’s 3-year catch-all applies. | Held: Majority treats UPCCRA exception as removing §99-39-5(2) bar (no UPCCRA time-bar); concurrence disagrees but concurs in outcome—case dismissed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. State, 141 So.3d 34 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (standards for succeeding on PCR appeal)
- Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120 (Miss. 1999) (requirements for PCR success)
- Ashmore v. State, 127 So.3d 303 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (review standard for summary dismissal of PCR)
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (appellate review principles)
- Edmond v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 783 So.2d 675 (Miss. 2001) (UPCCRA expressly excepts parole-revocation claims from the three-year limitation)
- Leech v. State, 994 So.2d 850 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (parole/probation revocation claims not subject to §99-39-5(2) time-bar)
- Brunson v. State, 796 So.2d 284 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (reinstatement of suspended sentence and double jeopardy analysis)
- McCray v. State, 107 So.3d 1042 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (PCR ineffective-assistance pleading standards)
- Carpenter v. State, 899 So.2d 916 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (requiring more than conclusory ineffective-assistance allegations)
- Jones v. State, 700 So.2d 631 (Miss. 1997) (appropriate to summarily dismiss untimely PCR motions)
- Cole v. State, 608 So.2d 1313 (Miss. 1992) (rationale for statutes of limitation and public policy favoring timely claims)