205 So. 3d 1126
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1995 Earl Bates was indicted for murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a felon; the State amended the indictment to allege Bates as a habitual offender and nolled the firearms count before trial.
- Bates was convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated assault on November 28, 1995; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in 1997.
- On July 14, 2014 Bates (pro se) filed a "motion to show cause" challenging the validity of the 1995 indictment, arguing the habitual-offender amendment and deletion of language/counts rendered it defective.
- The trial court treated the filing as a petition for post-conviction collateral relief (PCCR) under the UPCCRA and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and as procedurally barred.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding Bates’s petition barred as successive and time‑barred under the UPCCRA and that he failed to obtain the supreme court’s permission required to file after direct-appeal resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment defect (omission of "against the peace and dignity of the State" and amendments) | Bates: amendment deleted required language and the habitual-offender amendment was invalid, voiding the indictment | State: petition challenges convictions via PCCR and is subject to statutory procedural bars | Court: substantive defect claim is time-barred and treated as PCCR; not considered on merits |
| Procedural bars: successive-writ and jurisdictional requirement | Bates: styled filing as a motion to show cause (argues UPCCRA inapplicable) | State: petition is successive, untimely, and the supreme court’s permission (per §99-39-7) was not sought; trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court: petition barred as successive; time-bar expired; Bates failed to obtain required supreme-court leave, so dismissal affirmed |
| Time‑limit exceptions (intervening decision, new evidence, sentence expiration) | Bates: offered no showing of any statutory exception | State: asserts no exception applies | Court: Bates failed to show any exception; three-year limitations and exceptions not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. State, 135 So. 3d 184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review and de novo review for legal questions)
- Knox v. State, 75 So. 3d 1030 (Miss. 2011) (pleadings asserting post-conviction relief will be treated as UPCCRA motions regardless of label)
- Smith v. State, 118 So. 3d 180 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory successive‑writ bar and its exceptions)
- Graham v. State, 151 So. 3d 242 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (three‑year time bar and listed exceptions)
- Cummings v. State, 130 So. 3d 129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (defective‑indictment claims are barred if PCCR not filed within three‑year limit)
- Barnes v. State, 949 So. 2d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (same principle regarding time‑bar for indictment‑defect claims)