Joseph Patrick Brown v. State of Mississippi
255 So. 3d 141
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Joseph Patrick Brown was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1994; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Brown previously filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition; the trial court denied relief and this Court later affirmed.
- Brown filed a notice seeking leave to file a successive PCR and moved this Court to direct the Adams County Circuit Court to permit pre-petition discovery and access orders under Miss. R. App. P. 22(c).
- This Court previously denied a similar discovery request, finding no minimal showing of need; Brown renewed the request with a list of broad discovery items.
- The majority held Rule 22(c) does not apply to successive PCR petitions and denied pre-petition discovery, finding Brown’s requests speculative and a fishing expedition.
- A dissent argued Rule 22(c)’s plain language permits discovery “from and after” appointment of counsel without limitation to first petitions and criticized reliance on statutory successive-writ bars to override the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 22(c) permits pre-petition discovery for a successive PCR | Brown: Rule 22(c) authorizes discovery after appointment of PCR counsel and thus allows pre-petition discovery for successive petitions | State/Majority: Rule 22(c) was designed for initial PCRs and must be read with UPCCRA’s single-petition scheme; it does not apply to successive petitions | Held: Rule 22(c) does not apply to successive PCRs; discovery denied |
| Whether Brown made the requisite showing to justify pre-petition discovery under Rule 22(c)(4)(ii) | Brown: Provided a list of discovery needs and argued discovery is necessary to prepare a meaningful successive petition | State: Brown failed to specify how items relate to particular, nonfrivolous issues; some materials already provided or unavailable | Held: Brown’s showing was inadequate—requests were speculative/fishing; no minimal showing of need |
| Whether statutory provisions (UPCCRA) bar relying on Rule 22(c) for successive-petition discovery | Brown: Argued need to comply with evidentiary obligations for filing; sought discovery first | State/Majority: UPCCRA limits petitioning to one PCR with limited exceptions; Rule 22 was enacted to implement initial-PCR procedures | Held: Majority applied UPCCRA to limit Rule 22(c)’s reach to initial capital PCRs |
| Procedural authority: whether this Court’s rulemaking or statute controls discovery access | Brown/Dissent: Rule 22(c)’s plain text controls and permits discovery; rules should not be overridden by statute | Majority: Applied statutes to interpret the rule in context of legislative PCR framework | Held: Majority relied on statutory framework; dissent objected as improper override of Court rulemaking authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 682 So. 2d 340 (affirming conviction and sentence) (background on direct appeal)
- Brown v. State, 749 So. 2d 82 (1999) (granting leave to proceed in trial court on initial PCR)
- Brown v. State, 88 So. 3d 726 (2012) (affirming denial of Brown’s initial PCR)
- Russell v. State, 819 So. 2d 1177 (2001) (describing single post-conviction motion rule subject to limited exceptions)
- Carrothers v. State, 189 So. 3d 612 (2016) (discussing Rule 22(c) as implementation of PCR burdens for capital cases)
- Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505 (1989) (recognizing discovery under UPCCRA upon good cause and judge’s discretion)
- Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (1975) (addressing this Court’s rulemaking authority over procedure)