Grayson v. State
118 So. 3d 118
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Grayson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for a May 1996 killing.
- This Court previously affirmed his conviction and death sentence on direct appeal and again denied post-conviction relief (Grayson I; Grayson II).
- Grayson filed a second PCR petition and a separate “Motion for Access” to his experts.
- The state argued procedural bars (successive writ, time bars) apply and denied relief; Grayson contends exceptions apply due to ineffective PCR counsel and rights violations.
- The court held that Grayson’s motion for leave to file a successor PCR is procedurally barred, but grants access to his experts subject to MDOC rules; PCR counsel’s ineffective-assistance claim is without merit.
- The analysis emphasizes Missouri-style Strickland standard, the critical stage of PCR in death cases, and the need for proper evidentiary support and discovery under UPCCRA and Rule 22(c)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the successor PCR is procedurally barred | Grayson claims exception for denied PCR counsel | State argues bars apply under Miss. Code § 99-39-27(9) and § 99-39-5(2) | Procedurally barred; granted access to proceed in circuit court. |
| Whether trial/appeal counsel were ineffective in pre- and post-conviction stages | Grayson asserts multiple ineffective-assistance claims | State contends claims are barred or lack prejudice | Claims lack merit; no reversible error found under Strickland. |
| Whether jury instructions violated mitigation and parole guidance (ineffective assistance claim) | Jury was not instructed to consider all mitigating evidence and parole ineligibility | Catch-all and totality of evidence instructions suffice; parole instruction present | No reversible error; instructions adequate. |
| Whether Grayson was denied access to experts and discovery | Access to experts necessary for full PCR litigation | MDOC rules may limit access | Granted leave to pursue access in circuit court, subject to MDOC rules. |
| Whether cumulative errors required relief | Multiple errors cumulatively prejudicial | No individual or cumulative prejudice shown | No relief on cumulative-error theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. State, 806 So.2d 241 (Miss. 2001) (direct-appeal affirmation of conviction and death sentence)
- Grayson v. State, 879 So.2d 1008 (Miss. 2004) (PCR denial; successive-writ discussion)
- Jackson v. State, 732 So.2d 187 (Miss. 1999) (PCR is a critical stage; indigent defendants require competent counsel)
- Puckett v. State, 834 So.2d 676 (Miss. 2002) (time-bar and exceptional-cause considerations in death-penalty PCR)
- Jordan v. State, 912 So.2d 800 (Miss. 2005) (recognition of catch-all mitigation instruction validity)
- Fulgham v. State, 46 So.3d 315 (Miss. 2010) (mitigation evidence considerations in sentencing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard; deficient performance and prejudice)
- Jordan v. State, 918 So.2d 636 (Miss. 2005) (parole instruction sufficiency)
- Homburger v. State, — (Miss. 1995) (instruction error analysis (harmless error))
- Bishop v. State, 812 So.2d 934 (Miss. 2002) (harmless error analysis for misinstruction)