Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi
2015 Miss. LEXIS 314
| Miss. | 2015Background
- Fluker pleaded guilty to robbery and received a 15-year sentence with suspended portion and post-release supervision.
- In 2005, Fluker violated post-release supervision; the court revoked it and resentenced to 12 years.
- Fluker filed a pro se PCR in 2007 arguing the sentence was illegal and the revocation unlawful; circuit court dismissed; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Fluker filed a second PCR in 2012 challenging the revocation again; circuit court dismissed as a successive pleading; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals, correcting its analysis but upholding the procedural bar.
- Major issues concern UPCCRA procedural bars, their exceptions for unlawfully revoked conditional release, and the applicability of other statutes and due-process considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second PCR is barred as a successive pleading | Fluker argues exception applies to unlawful-revocation claims | State argues successive-pleading bar applies to relitigating revocation | Second PCR barred by UPCCRA progression (successive pleading) |
| Whether the unlawful-revocation exception to the bar applies | Unlawful-revocation claim fits exception to bar | Exception limited or overridden by the statutory bar and exclusivity | Exception acknowledged but does not overcome the bar here; analysis limited by UPCCRA exclusivity |
| Whether the fundamental-rights exception to procedural bars applies | Due-process concerns about revocation may trigger exception | Bare assertion of constitutional violation insufficient without a showing of basis | Not satisfied; due-process claim not shown to trigger exception |
| Whether the general three-year statute of limitations applies to a PCR motion | 15-1-49 could apply in absence of UPCCRA-exclusive timing | UPCCRA provides exclusive, uniform procedure; 15-1-49 not controlling | UPCCRA exclusivity governs; 15-1-49 does not govern PCR timing |
Key Cases Cited
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exception requires some factual basis)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exception to UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (res judicata not applicable to constitutional post-conviction claims; focus on statutory bar)
- Gibson v. State, 49 So.3d 1164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (second PCR reiterating same revocation barred as successive)
- Lyons v. State, 990 So.2d 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (limits on exceptions to successive-PCR relief for previously decided issues)
- Retherford v. State, 749 So.2d 269 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (exceptional scope of Section 99-39-23(6) for certain claims)
- Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) (parole-revocation due process minimum requirements)
- Presley v. State, 48 So.3d 526 (Miss. 2010) (due-process requirements for revocation hearings)