Hill v. StateHill v. State
Office of the Attorney General by Billy L. Gore, Attorneys for Appellee.
District Attorney: R.K. Coleman.
CHANDLER, J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Billy Dale Hill pled guilty to one count of murder and one count of forcible rape on October 24, 1977, and received two consecutive life sentences for the crimes. On August 9, 1999, Hill petitioned the Calhoun County Circuit Court for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Hill challenges the circuit court‘s summary denial of his post-conviction relief petition. Specifically, Hill challenges the trial court‘s authority to impose a life sentence for the rape charge without a jury recommendation. Finding that Hill‘s petition for post-conviction relief is procedurally barred, we hereby affirm.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Statute of limitations
¶ 2.
¶ 3. The following are exceptions to the three-year limitations period:
Excepted from this three-year statute of limitations are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.
B. Successive petition
¶ 4. “[A]ny order dismissing the prisoner‘s motion or otherwise denying relief under this chapter is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this chapter.”
¶ 5. The trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief....”
¶ 6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. COSTS ARE ASSESSED TO CALHOUN COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING and SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., PAYNE, BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING and MYERS, JJ., concur.