Fulgham v. State, 47 So. 3d 698

Fulgham, an inmate, provided a cell phone and charger to another inmate in Oktibbeha County Jail in 2004.
She pled guilty to furnishing an unauthorized electronic device under Mississippi Code § 47-5-193 and received an eight-year sentence.
Fulgham challenged the conviction in a post-conviction relief petition, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and that counsel was ineffective.
The trial court denied post-conviction relief without a hearing, finding waiver and lack of vagueness.
The Mississippi Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine (i) notice that a cell phone/charger is an “electronic device,” (ii) whether they were “unauthorized,” and (iii) whether enforcement standards were definite.
The court ultimately held the statute vague as applied and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fulgham’s vagueness challenge is procedurally barred.	Fulgham argues the due process defect cannot be waived by plea.	State contends the PCR bar applies.	Not barred due to fundamental-right exception; remanded for merits.
Whether Mississippi Code § 47-5-193 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Fulgham.	Fulgham argues “unauthorized electronic device” is indeterminate.	State contends statute is not facially vague or is applicable.	Remand for evidentiary hearing to determine notice and standards; statute found vague as applied.
Whether the statute was facially vague given its undefined term “unauthorized electronic device.”	Fulgham argues the term lacks definitional clarity.	State asserts some interpretive flexibility but not per se vague.	Court analyzes vagueness standards and remands for factual development; not a final facial ruling.

U.S. v. National Dairy Prods. Co., 372 U.S. 29 (1963) (relevance of evaluating statute as applied to conduct)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness vs. applied considerations; notice and enforcement)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (strict vagueness test when rights implicated)
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (facial vagueness and rights considerations)
Roark & Hardee LP v. City of Austin, 522 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2008) (stepwise vagueness approach when rights implicated)
Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951) (definiteness and warning sufficiency standard)
Nichols v. City of Gulfport, 589 So.2d 1280 (Miss. 1991) (due-process and notice considerations in Mississippi)