Case Title: Ricky L. Shoemaker, Sr. a/k/a Ricky Shoemaker a/k/a Ricky L. Shoemaker a/k/a Ricky L. Shoemaker, Jr. a/k/a Rickey L. Shoemaker a/k/a Rickey Shoemaker v. State of Mississippi

Citation: 2019-M-00832

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 2024-01-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
Serial: 249679 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2019-M-00832 RICKY L. SHOEMAKER, SR. A/K/A RICKY SHOEMAKER A/K/A RICKY L. SHOEMAKER A/K/A RICKY L. SHOEMAKER, JR. A/K/A RICKEY L. SHOEMAKER A/K/A RICKEY SHOEMAKER Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent ORDER Now before the Court en banc is Ricky Shoemaker’s Appeal from Denial of Petition for Post Conviction Relief, which is in the nature of an application for leave to proceed in the trial court pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2020). Shoemaker was convicted of one count of sexual battery and one count of gratification of lust, and he received a twenty-year sentence for sexual battery and a concurrent fifteen-year sentence for gratification of lust, with five years suspended and five years of supervised probation. Additionally, Shoemaker was ordered to register as a sex offender. Shoemaker v. State, 256 So. 3d 604, 609 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). This Court denied Shoemaker’s petition for certiorari review on November 8, 2018, and the mandate issued on November 29, 2018. In 2019, Shoemaker filed his first application seeking leave to pursue post-conviction relief in the trial court, and this Court denied him relief. See Order, Shoemaker v. State, No. 2019-M-00832 (Miss. Oct. 11, 2019). In his present filing, Shoemaker argues that his indictment was defective and that his attorney was ineffective. He also argues that it was error to allow prior-bad-acts testimony at trial. After due consideration, the Court finds that Shoemaker’s claims are time-barred and barred as a successive writ. Shoemaker’s claims also fail to satisfy any of the statutory exceptions to the application to the procedural bars. Therefore, the Court Electronic Document Jan 17 2024 08:56:53 2019-M-00832 Pages: 5 2 finds that Shoemaker’s application should be denied. The Court further finds that the application is frivolous. Shoemaker is hereby warned that any future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary sanctions, but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See, e.g., En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016- M-01514 (Miss. Apr. 11, 2019) (restricting in forma pauperis status); En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (warning of sanctions, including in forma pauperis restrictions). SO ORDERED. TO DENY WITH SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2019-M-00832 Ricky L. Shoemaker, Sr. A/k/a Ricky Shoemaker a/k/a Ricky L. Shoemaker a/k/a Ricky L. Shoemaker, Jr. A/k/a Rickey L. Shoemaker a/k/a Rickey Shoemaker v. State of Mississippi KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT: ¶1. Although I agree that Ricky L. Shoemaker’s application for post-conviction relief should be dismissed, I disagree with the Court’s finding that the application is frivolous and with its warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis.1 ¶2. This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean one filed in which the movant has “no hope of success.” Roland v. State, 666 So. 2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995). However, “though a case may be weak or ‘light-headed,’ that is not sufficient to label it frivolous.” Calhoun v. State, 849 So. 2d 892, 897 (Miss. 2003). In his application for post- conviction relief, Shoemaker made reasonable arguments. As such, I disagree with the Court’s determination that Shoemaker’s application is frivolous. 1See Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018). ¶3. Additionally, I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions on a criminal defendant proceeding in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude that defendant from his lawful right to appeal. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sanction as “[a] provision that gives force to a legal imperative by either rewarding obedience or punishing disobedience.” Sanction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Instead of punishing the defendant for filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny or dismiss motions that lack merit. As Justice Brennan wisely stated, The Court’s order purports to be motivated by this litigant’s disproportionate consumption of the Court’s time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the amount of time and resources required to deal properly with McDonald’s petitions could be so great as to justify the step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr. McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to process his petitions for the next several years at least. I continue to find puzzling the Court’s fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources. In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186–87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting).2 2See also In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 19, 111 S. Ct. 1569, 1571, 114 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having ‘abused the system,’ . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here.”). 2 ¶4. The same logic applies to the restriction on filing subsequent applications for post- conviction relief. To cut off an indigent defendant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis is to cut off his access to the courts. This, in itself, violates a defendant’s constitutional rights, for Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the recognition of these and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became a fundamental right. Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You’re Out of Court-It May Be Effective, but Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474–75 (1997). This Court must not discourage convicted defendants from exercising their right to appeal. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1986). Novel arguments that might remove a criminal defendant from confinement should not be discouraged by the threat of monetary sanctions and restrictions on filings. Id. ¶5. Therefore, although I find no merit in Shoemaker’s application for post-conviction relief, I disagree with this Court’s contention that the application merits the classification of frivolous and with its warning of future sanctions and restrictions. KITCHENS, P.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT. 3