Havard v. State, 83 So. 3d 452

Havard appeals a George County Circuit Court PCR denial after his probation violation and DUI conviction.
Trial court revoked Havard's probation in 2009 for alcohol possession in a dry county and DUI, altering eight-year suspended sentence to six years in MDOC with two years post-release supervision.
Havard previously challenged his conviction in direct appeal; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2001.
Havard filed a PCR motion, which the trial court denied, prompting this appeal.
The court treated jurisdiction as a threshold issue, noting jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo.
The court vacated the trial court’s denial and remanded to dismiss the PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction because Havard failed to obtain Supreme Court permission under §99-39-7.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR motion was properly before the trial court.	Havard argues the motion should proceed under PCR as the remedy for his claims.	State contends permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court was required under §99-39-7 before filing in the trial court and was not obtained.	Lack of Supreme Court permission deprives trial court of jurisdiction; remand to dismiss.

Beasley v. State, 795 So.2d 539 (Miss. 2001) (probation revocation not directly appealable; PCR remedy governs)
Willie v. State, 69 So.3d 42 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (permission required to file PCR after direct appeal)
Epps v. State, 837 So.2d 243 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (lack of permission deprives court of authority to reach merits)
Lacey v. State, 29 So.3d 786 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses jurisdictional consequences of §99-39-7 noncompliance)
Payne v. State, 966 So.2d 1266 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (jurisdictional de novo review of post-conviction issues)
Rogers v. State, 829 So.2d 1287 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (PCR procedure as exclusive remedy after unsuccessful direct appeal)