158 So. 3d 1202
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sam Bradford Sr. was convicted of murder by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment; he argued on direct appeal that the verdict should have been manslaughter.
- This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
- Bradford filed successive applications for leave to proceed in the circuit court; the Mississippi Supreme Court denied them as raising issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal and found his illegal-sentence claim meritless.
- Bradford filed multiple post-conviction collateral relief (PCCR) motions in circuit court (including a Rule 60(b)(4) motion); the circuit court dismissed them as time-barred and successive and imposed a $250 filing sanction.
- Bradford again filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in October 2013 without obtaining permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court; the circuit court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and Bradford appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Bradford had not obtained the required leave from the Mississippi Supreme Court for a PCCR after an affirmed conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to entertain Bradford's post-conviction motion filed after direct-appeal affirmance | Bradford argued his conviction should be vacated and he be resentenced for manslaughter; he contended constitutional rights were violated by the dismissal | State argued Bradford failed to obtain Supreme Court permission as required for PCCR after an affirmed conviction and his filings were time-barred/successive | Court held lack of jurisdiction because Bradford did not obtain Mississippi Supreme Court permission; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Bradford's filing converted to a viable Rule 60(b) collateral attack avoiding PCCR restrictions | Bradford attempted to proceed via Rule 60(b)(4) or judgment-on-pleadings to evade PCCR bars | State maintained substantive post-conviction claims must proceed under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act and its gatekeeping rules | Court treated filings as PCCR and applied statutory restrictions; not a viable escape hatch |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. State, 910 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. Ct. App.) (affirming Bradford’s conviction)
- Bradford v. State, 116 So. 3d 164 (Miss. Ct. App.) (affirming dismissal of prior PCCR for lack of jurisdiction)
- Putnam v. Epps, 963 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. Ct. App.) (explaining that the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act supplanted post-conviction habeas practice)
- Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595 (Miss.) (de novo review of legal issues)
- Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard for reversing denial of PCCR)
- Robinson v. State, 19 So. 3d 140 (Miss. Ct. App.) (summary dismissal affirmed where movant fails to show a procedurally alive claim)