McKenzie v. State
2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 449
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- McKenzie appeals the Sunflower County Circuit Court's dismissal of his Motion for an Order for Time Served as frivolous.
- McKenzie challenges twenty-year and five-year concurrent sentences for armed robbery and a related conspiracy, consecutive to a thirty-year cocaine-sell sentence.
- Direct appeal affirmations exist from McKenzie v. State, 669 So.2d 795 (Miss.Ct.App.1995) and 667 So.2d 634 (Miss.Ct.App.1995).
- Claims against MDOC procedures (earned time, parole eligibility) were raised as constitutional or administrative errors; argument falls under MDOC Administrative Remedies Program, not PCR.
- Court held McKenzie failed to exhaust administrative remedies and lacked jurisdiction to challenge the MDOC operations or the legality of the sentence via PCR without Supreme Court leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKenzie exhausted MDOC remedies before court | McKenzie asserts MDOC errors in time earned and parole. | MDOC claims must be exhausted via Administrative Remedies Program, not PCR. | Yes, exhaustion required; court lacked jurisdiction over MDOC claims. |
| Whether PCR is proper to challenge MDOC computations and parole eligibility | PCR is appropriate for sentence-related issues and MDOC errors. | PCR is improper for MDOC administrative issues; must use remedies program. | PCR not proper for MDOC grievance claims; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether McKenzie may challenge the legality of his sentence via PCR without Supreme Court leave | Direct appeal corpus allows further relief via PCR. | Need Supreme Court leave after affirmed direct appeal before filing PCR. | Lack of Supreme Court leave; no jurisdiction to review the sentence legality. |
| Whether the prior leave-denial history and sanctions affect the current proceeding | Direct burden not addressed by prior denials. | Supreme Court denial and sanctions authority may apply to future filings. | Court affirmed dismissal and warned of possible sanctions for frivolous filings. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKenzie v. State, 669 So.2d 795 (Miss. Ct. App. 1995) (direct appeal affirmed prior to PCR)
- McKenzie v. State, 667 So.2d 634 (Miss. Ct. App. 1995) (direct appeal affirmed; multiple precedents noted)
- Brown v. State, 54 So.3d 882 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (administrative remedies prerequisite for MDOC claims)
- Keys v. State, So.3d (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (administrative remedies route for inmate grievances (MDOC))
- Melton v. State, 930 So.2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (proper vehicle for inmate constitutional claims regarding MDOC)
- Burns v. State, 933 So.2d 329 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (PCR avenue guidance; time served proceedings noted)
- Walker v. State, 35 So.3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (exhaustion prerequisite referenced)
- Lacey v. State, 29 So.3d 786 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (jurisdictional limits after direct appeal and leave requirements)
- Crosby v. State, 982 So.2d 1003 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (leave requirements for post-conviction relief)
- Ivy v. State, 688 So.2d 223 (Miss. 1997) (court authority to sanction frivolous filings)
- McLamb v. State, 974 So.2d 935 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory sanctions authority for frivolous filings)
- McKenzie, 669 So.2d, 669 So.2d 795 (Miss. Ct. App. 1995) (see above direct-appeal context)