151 So. 3d 216
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- Raine pled guilty to one count of uttering a forgery in Rankin County, Mississippi, on January 4, 2010, and was sentenced to ten years with four years to serve and five years of post-release supervision plus $1,500 restitution.
- Raine filed July 1, 2013 a motion labeled as writ of habeas corpus, alternatively a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion challenging subject-matter jurisdiction and seeking an evidentiary hearing.
- The Rankin County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the motion after review of the plea transcript and criminal file.
- Raine appealed to challenge the circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the denial of an evidentiary hearing, arguing the offense occurred in Hattiesburg (Lamar County) rather than Rankin County.
- The appellate court held the UPCCRA governs PCR actions, held Raine’s motion barred by the three-year time limit, and affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal and ruling on evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did venue affect subject-matter jurisdiction? | Raine argued improper venue defeated jurisdiction. | State asserted indictment in Rankin County conferred jurisdiction. | No reversible error; Rankin County indictment granted jurisdiction. |
| Was Raine entitled to an evidentiary hearing on PCR? | Raine claimed lack of jurisdiction warrants hearing. | Record showed mismatch between sworn plea and PCR statements; no hearing needed. | No evidentiary hearing required; sworn plea testimony contradicted in PCR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapell v. State, 107 So. 3d 1003 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (indictment establishes circuit court jurisdiction)
- Neal v. State, 936 So. 2d 463 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (courts may rely on plea testimony over PCR assertions)
- Purnell v. State, 126 So. 3d 949 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (clear standard for PCR factual review)
- Hughes v. State, 80 So. 3d 876 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (contradictory sworn statements affect hearing entitlement)
- Tolliver v. State, 802 So.2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (perjury considerations in PCR context)