73 So. 3d 542
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Russell appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his second post-conviction relief (PCR) motion, alleging newly discovered evidence from a warrant-affidavit discrepancy and seeking restoration of earned-time credits.
- On March 9, 2007, SMNTF conducted a controlled marijuana purchase from Russell at his home, captured on video.
- Agents obtained a warrant to search Russell's residence; the indictment alleged intent to distribute 237.2 grams of marijuana and Russell was sentenced to eight years.
- Russell filed a first PCR in 2007 alleging involuntary guilty plea; denied and affirmed in 2010.
- A second PCR was filed on May 10, 2010, and dismissed as successive with a finding of frivolousness, resulting in forfeiture of 60 days of earned-time credit.
- The court held that, even with waiver considerations, the second PCR did not present newly discovered evidence and the motion remained barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the discrepancy constitute newly discovered evidence | Russell | Russell | No; discrepancy is impeaching, not newly discovered evidence |
| Does waiver of guilty plea bar collateral attack on the search warrant | Russell | State | Waived; collateral attack barred |
| Is the PCR second motion barred as successive with no exception | Russell | State | Bar applies; no applicable exception for newly discovered evidence |
| Was forfeiture of earned-time credits proper | Russell | State | Proper; motion meritless and frivolous despite waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (standard for challenging a search warrant affidavit)
- Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1956) (impeachment evidence limitations on truthfulness)
- United States v. Reedy, 304 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002) (newly discovered evidence standards in post-conviction context)
- Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951 (Miss. 1992) (criteria for newly discovered evidence under Mississippi law)
- Johnson v. State, 39 So.3d 963 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (application of newly discovered evidence requirements)
- Dock v. State, 802 So.2d 1051 (Miss. 2001) (frivolousness standard in forma pauperis PCR context)
- Moore v. State, 986 So.2d 928 (Miss. 2008) (sanctions for forfeiture of earned time in frivolous PCR matters)
- Mason v. State, 42 So.3d 629 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (guilty plea waiver of certain collateral attacks)
- King v. State, 738 So.2d 240 (Miss. 1999) (waiver considerations in PCR-related searches)
- Robinson v. State, 19 So.3d 140 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural alive analysis in PCR review)
- Williams v. State, 872 So.2d 711 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (summary dismissal standards for PCR motions)