147 So. 3d 862
Miss. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2009 Ryan Savinell pled guilty to armed robbery and was sentenced to 20 years with 8 years post-release supervision.
- Savinell filed a first post-conviction relief (PCR) motion; it was dismissed on January 5, 2012; a rehearing request was denied and his appeal was dismissed for failure to pay costs.
- On November 2, 2012, Savinell filed a second PCR motion raising (1) claims previously asserted and (2) several new claims: alleged State misrepresentation, discovery failures, involuntary plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and newly discovered evidence.
- The trial court dismissed the second PCR motion as procedurally barred as a successive writ and by res judicata under the UPCCRA.
- The court required Savinell to prove by a preponderance that his claims were not barred; the court found he did not meet that burden and no exception (e.g., fundamental constitutional error) applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state misrepresentation/discovery failures/involuntary plea/ineffective assistance/newly discovered evidence vitiate plea or permit successive PCR | Savinell contended these issues undermined his conviction/plea and fell within exceptions to procedural bars | State argued second PCR was a successive writ and claims were barred by res judicata and waiver; no exception applied | Dismissed as successive writ/res judicata; claims barred and not saved by any exception |
| Whether the second PCR motion was a successive writ under the UPCCRA | Savinell argued the new motion raised viable claims that should be heard | State argued prior final judgment barred a second or successive motion absent an applicable exception | Court held the second motion was successive and procedurally barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) |
| Whether prior adjudication precludes re-raising previously litigated issues | Savinell attempted to reassert issues from his first PCR | State maintained issues previously decided cannot be relitigated (res judicata) | Court held issues previously addressed were barred by res judicata |
| Whether any exception (e.g., fundamental constitutional error) applies to overcome procedural bars | Savinell claimed exceptions might apply to permit review | State argued no fundamental constitutional error shown | Court found no exception applicable; procedural bar sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for PCR dismissal)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.3d 840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (burden on petitioner to prove claims are not successive; exceptions for fundamental constitutional errors)
- Ratcliff v. State, 120 So.3d 1058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (issues decided in a final judgment may not be raised again by PCR movant)