161 So. 3d 1098
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Creel was indicted for burglary and, while in custody, departed, leading to a grand jury indictment for escaping custody under §97-9-49(1).
- In 1994, Creel was convicted and sentenced to life without parole as a habitual offender under §99-19-83; he did not pursue a direct appeal.
- From 1997 to 2001, Creel filed multiple post-conviction relief motions; the supreme court and this court denied them as time-barred or untimely/successive.
- On July 2, 2012, Creel filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum; in 2013 the Mississippi Supreme Court granted mandamus directing the trial court to address the petition.
- The trial court treated the petition as a PCCR motion and dismissed it as untimely and successive under §§99-39-5(2) and 99-39-23(6); the Court of Appeals affirms.
- The dispositive issue is whether Creel’s petition was timely and properly not barred as a successive PCCR motion under Mississippi law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Creel’s petition was timely and not barred as successive PCCR. | Creel contends merits should be heard despite pro se drafting defects. | State argues the petition was untimely and barred as successive under §§99-39-5(2) and 99-39-23(6). | Yes; the petition was untimely and barred as a successive PCCR. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMillen v. State, 811 So.2d 446 (Miss. App. Ct. 2001) (permits considering pro se filings despite technical errors)
- Chapman v. State, 135 So.3d 184 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (de novo review on legal questions; factual findings deferential)
- Madden v. State, 75 So.3d 1130 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing PCCR denials)
- Creel v. State, 814 So.2d 176 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (prior affirmance of denial as untimely/successive)