306 So.3d 751
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Johnnie Earl Wheeler was convicted of murder in 1970 and sentenced to life; he has been paroled repeatedly and repeatedly reoffended.
- Wheeler has mounted numerous post-conviction and habeas challenges over decades (including challenges to a 1997 cocaine conviction and multiple parole revocations in 2013 and 2015).
- In 2015 Wheeler’s parole was revoked after new shoplifting convictions; he has repeatedly asserted due-process defects in the revocation proceedings (lack of preliminary hearing, wrong name, inability to call witnesses, lack of notice of counsel).
- Wheeler filed a May 14, 2018 PCR in Lincoln County challenging (1) his 1970 murder conviction (allegedly defective indictment) and (2) his March 19, 2015 parole revocation.
- The circuit court dismissed the 2018 PCR because the issues had been previously raised and decided and thus were barred by res judicata and the UPCCRA successive-writ bar; the court also noted Wheeler had not obtained prior Mississippi Supreme Court leave to file certain claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the PCR was unauthorized, time-barred/successive, and precluded by res judicata/statutory successive-writ rules; a partial dissent argued constitutional claims should not be barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to challenge 1970 murder conviction via PCR | Wheeler argued the indictment was defective and his murder conviction/sentence illegal | State: Wheeler had previously appealed; he needed supreme-court leave under §99-39-7 before filing PCR; he did not obtain it | Court: No jurisdiction to hear; Wheeler failed to obtain required leave; related supreme-court panels denied leave |
| Timeliness / statutory bars to murder‑conviction claims | Wheeler contended fundamental defects support review despite delay | State: Claims are time‑barred/waived and do not meet statutory exceptions | Court: Claims were time‑barred/waived and previously rejected by supreme-court panels; dismissal affirmed |
| Challenge to 2015 parole revocation (due-process) | Wheeler asserted denial of probable-cause hearing, fabricated charges, venue denial for witnesses, no notice of counsel | State: These issues were previously litigated in prior motions/orders; successive-writ and res judicata bar relitigation | Court: Claims were previously raised and decided; barred by res judicata/successive‑writ; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether fundamental‑rights exception defeats res judicata/successive‑writ | Wheeler argued constitutional due-process claims should overcome procedural bars | State: Even fundamental-rights claims may be barred if previously presented and decided; statutory successive‑writ rules govern | Court: Fundamental-rights exceptions exist but do not permit relitigation of claims already adjudicated; dismissal affirmed (partial dissent disagreed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 249 So. 2d 652 (Miss. 1971) (appeal dismissed where defendant was a fugitive)
- Wheeler v. State, 903 So. 2d 756 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (PCR dismissed for lack of custody/time-bar)
- Jordan v. State, 213 So. 3d 40 (Miss. 2016) (repeated PCR claims barred by res judicata/successive‑writ)
- Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015) (res judicata does not apply to constitutional post‑conviction claims; successive‑pleadings statute governs)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (errors affecting fundamental rights excepted from UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Putnam v. State, 212 So. 3d 86 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (identifies fundamental‑rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (mere assertion of constitutional violation insufficient to overcome procedural bar)
- Salter v. State, 184 So. 3d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (successive‑writ bar requires movant to present all known claims in first petition)
- Hays v. State, 282 So. 3d 714 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (reiterating that prior presentation of a claim bars later successive PCR)