Winfred Forkner v. State of Mississippi
227 So. 3d 404
| Miss. | 2017Background
- In 2001 Forkner was convicted by a Wilkinson County jury of burglary of a storehouse and sentenced as an habitual offender to life without parole.
- Forkner’s direct appeal was assigned to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction and sentence.
- Forkner sought permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court multiple times over five years to file a post-conviction-relief motion in the trial court; those requests were denied or dismissed, and he never obtained permission under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7.
- In January 2014 Forkner filed a document in the circuit court styled as a Rule 60(b) motion; the circuit court treated it as a UPCCRA motion and denied it as time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals agreed the circuit court lacked authority to entertain the motion (because Forkner had not obtained permission) but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it, leaving the circuit court’s judgment in place.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the Court of Appeals did have appellate jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s disposition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal, and vacated the circuit court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had authority to adjudicate Forkner’s filing | Forkner treated the filing as a Rule 60(b) motion and sought relief in circuit court without Supreme Court permission | State: the filing was a UPCCRA (post-conviction) motion and Forkner needed Supreme Court permission under § 99-39-7 before filing in circuit court | Circuit court lacked authority; Forkner needed permission before filing post-conviction motion in trial court |
| Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s disposition | Forkner implicitly argued appellate review should proceed to correct lower-court error | State argued the motion was filed in the wrong court and thus appeal should be dismissed | Court had jurisdiction under M.R.A.P. 4(a) to review lawfulness of circuit court’s final judgment; dismissal was erroneous |
| Proper remedy when a circuit court adjudicates a post-conviction motion without required permission | Forkner sought relief from conviction/sentence on procedural grounds | State maintained lack of permission renders trial-court action voidable | Supreme Court vacated circuit-court order because the trial court lacked authority to hear the UPCCRA motion |
| Effect of procedural bar (statute of limitations) when permission was not obtained | Forkner attempted to avoid procedural bar by relabeling motion under Rule 60(b) | State asserted the three-year UPCCRA limitation barred the motion and permission was prerequisite | Circuit court correctly deemed the motion time-barred, but because it lacked authority to adjudicate, the order was vacated by the Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Forkner v. State, 902 So. 2d 615 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)