305 So.3d 417
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1993 Creel escaped custody while indicted for burglary; a Covington County jury convicted him of jail escape on July 18, 1994.
- He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole and never perfected a direct appeal; multiple post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) motions followed.
- On October 22, 2018 (with two supplemental filings in December 2018), Creel filed the PCR at issue, alleging due-process violations, denial of a bifurcated trial, double jeopardy, confrontation-clause violations, an illegal sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other trial errors.
- The circuit court denied relief on March 18, 2019; Creel appealed.
- The Court of Appeals held Creel’s PCR was time-barred under Miss. Code § 99-39-5 and barred as successive under § 99-39-23(6), and found Creel failed to show a fundamental-rights exception or provide a supporting record for his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / successive-writ bar | Creel argued exceptions apply because his claims implicate fundamental constitutional rights. | State argued the motion was filed >24 years after conviction and was successive; no exception established. | Court: PCR is untimely and successive; Creel failed to meet burden to invoke a statutory/fundamental-rights exception. |
| Bifurcated trial / due process | Creel said he was removed during trial and denied a mandatory bifurcated habitual-offender proceeding. | State: No record support that trial was not bifurcated; defendant provided no transcripts or affidavits. | Court: Claim unsupported by the record and without merit. |
| Double jeopardy | Creel contended successive prosecution/use of evidence violated double jeopardy. | State: Burglary and jail escape have distinct elements; prior convictions may be used to enhance sentencing. | Court: Argument vague, unsupported; offenses are distinct and no double-jeopardy violation shown. |
| Confrontation clause / MDOC records | Creel argued MDOC records were admitted without proper authentication and without ability to cross-examine the custodian. | State: Conviction-record certificates are not testimonial and are self-authenticating; confrontation not triggered. | Court: Records are non‑testimonial; admission did not violate confrontation rights; no record shown to the contrary. |
| Illegal sentence | Creel asserted his life sentence was illegal (linked to double-jeopardy and other trial errors). | State: No evidence the sentence exceeded statutory limits or was procedurally improper; no supporting record provided. | Court: Claim vague and unsubstantiated; no illegal-sentence showing. |
| Ineffective assistance / counsel abandonment | Creel claimed counsel abandoned him at trial/appeal. | State: This claim was previously litigated; no extraordinary circumstances shown and no supporting transcripts or correspondence. | Court: No extraordinary circumstance shown to overcome procedural bars; claim unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) (explains deference/exception for ineffective-assistance claims in extraordinary circumstances)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (requires showing violation of a fundamental constitutional right to overcome procedural bars)
- Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d 1239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (lists fundamental-rights exceptions that survive procedural bars)
- Seely v. State, 451 So. 2d 213 (Miss. 1984) (bifurcated trial mandatory when habitual-offender status is at issue)
- Burrell v. State, 183 So. 3d 19 (Miss. 2015) (prior-conviction certificates are non‑testimonial and do not trigger the confrontation clause)
- Kelly v. State, 80 So. 3d 802 (Miss. 2012) (double-jeopardy analysis requires differing elements between offenses)
- Bailey v. State, 728 So. 2d 1070 (Miss. 1997) (prior convictions validly used to enhance subsequent punishments)