I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 0 0 7 4 - S CT ROBERT

H. J AC KS ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 04/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. I S ADO RE W . P ATRI CK, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: PRO SE DA VI D M c CA RTY AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: J OHN R. HENRY, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 07/ 28/ 2011 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 04/ 15/ 2010 M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. T h e m o tio n for r eh ea ri n g fi led b y th e S tat e is g ran ted . T h e p re v io u s o p in io n is
w ith d ra w n , a n d th is o p in io n is s u b s titu te d th e re fo r. ¶2. Si nce hi s 1979 convi ct i on for capi t al m ur der , R obert H . J acks on has f i l ed mul t i pl e,
u n su cc essfu l m o ti o n s an d ap p li ca ti o n s for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef (P C R ). T h e tri al co u rt di s m i s s ed J acks on’ s m os tr ece ntm oti on, and the C ourtof A ppeal s af

f i rm ed. W e gr ant ed Ja c k so n ’s p ro se p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e trial c o u rt e rro n e o u sly d is m is s e d J a c k s o n ’s P C R m o tio n , s o w e re v e rs e a n d re m a n d
.T he capi t al
- m ur ders t atut e i n ef f ecti n 1979 s t at ed, i n pert i nentpart , that“[ t ] he 1 k ill in g o f a h u m a n b e in g w ith o u t th e a u th o rity o f la w b y a n y m e a n s o r in a n y m a n n e r sh a ll be capi t al m ur der
. . . [ w ] hen done w i th or w i thoutany desi gn t o ef f ectdeath, by any per s on engage d i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of

r ape, bur gl ary, ki dnappi ng, ar s on orr obbery, or in an y att em p t t o co m m itsu ch felon ies[
. ] ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (2)(e) (1 9 7 7 ). 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. R obert H . J acks on w as i ndi ct ed f or capi t al m ur der f

or ki l l i ng J os ephi ne T odd dur i ng th e b u rg lary o f h e r h o m e in V ick sb u rg , M iss iss ip p i, on Ju n e 4 , 1 9 7 9
. S o o n a fte r h is a rre st, 1 J acks on gave as t at ementt o pol i ce, d et ai l i ng the eve nt s s urr oundi ng the bur gl ary. J acks on
s t at ed thathe “ha d ent er ed M r s . T odd’ s A partm ent, ti ed herhands , pl ace d a cl oth overher
m ou th, l oo ked throug h the draw ers i n h er apartm ent, had found so m e m on ey, t oo k M rs . T o d d ’s p u rse , rem o v e d [th e ] res tra in ts fro m h e r h a n d s a n d p u lled [th e ] ga g o ff [h e r] m o u th and l ef tthr ough [ the] f

r ontdoorof

[ the] apartm ent . ” M r s . T odd di ed f r om as phyxi at i on. T he S t at e i nd i ct ed Jack son as a h abitual of fender. T he indi ctm ent charged Jackson as f oll ow s: T he G r and Jur or s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , el ect ed, summ oned, empanel ed, s w orn, and cha r ged t o i nqui r e i n and forthe body of W arr en C ounty, St at e of M iss iss ip p i, at th e te rm a fo re sa id , in th e n a m e a n d b y th e a u th o rity o f th e S tate of M i s s i s s i ppi , upon thei roaths pr es entthatR O B E R T H . JA C K SO N , l at e of the C ounty a f

or es ai d, on orbef

or e the 4th day of

J une, A
. D . , 1979, w i th f or ce a n d a rm s, in th e C o u n ty a fo re sa id , a n d w ith in th e ju risd ictio n o f th is C o u rt d id f el oni ous l y, w i l f

ul l y, and of

hi s m al i ce a f

or ethought , ki l l and murde rJ os ephi ne T odd, a human bei ng, w i th orw i thoutthe des i gn of the sa i d R obertH . J acks on to effec t th e d ea th o f th e sa id Jo sep h ine T o d d , at a ti m e w h en th e sa id R o b ert H . J acks on w as then engage d i n the com m i s s i on of the cr i m e of B ur gl ary of

the dw el l i ng ho use of

the s ai d J os ephi ne Todd, contr ary t o the pr ovi s i ons of S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 9 (2)(e) o f th e M issi ssipp i C o d e o f 19 7 2 , as am en d ed
. [C ] o n tr ary t o the s t atut e i n s uch ca s es m ade a nd pr ovi ded, and aga i ns tthe pea ce a nd d ig n ity o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i.S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -81 req u ir es h ab itu al offen d ers to “ b e sen tenc ed to the m ax im u m term 2 of i m pr i s onm entpr es cr i bed f ors uch f

el ony, and s uch s ent ence s hal l notbe r educe d or s us pended nors hal ls uch per s on be el igi ble f

orpar ole orproba t i on. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 1 9 -8 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Ja c k so n ’s c laim re g a rd in g th e p le a a g re e m e n t w a s s u p p o rte d b y a lette r fro m h is 3 att orney r eca l l i ng thatthe pl ea ba r gai n w as t o be mansl aught er , and an a f f i davi tf r om tw o of J acks on’ s f

ami l y m ember s w ho averr ed thatthey had unde r s t ood f r om J acks on’ s att orneys that the c h arg e w o u ld b e re d u ce d to m an slau g h ter. N o tr an script of the g u il ty p lea o r w aive rof- ri gh t s f

orm si gn ed b y Jackso n app eared i n the r ecord b efor e this C ou rti n Jackso n’s f i rs t p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f a p p e a l. J a c kso n v. Sta te , 506 So. 2d 994, 994- 95 ( M i s s . 1987) (“ Ja c ks on I

”). 3 Ja c k so n p lea d e d g u ilty to th is c h a rg e , an d h e w a s se n ten c e d as a h a b itu a l of fe n d e r to li fe in p ri so n w ith o u t paro le, p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -81 (19 7 8 ). 2 ¶4
. P u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i’ s U n if o rm P o st- C o n v ict ion C o ll ateral R eli ef A ct (U P C C R A ), J a c k s o n fi le d a m o tio n to v a c a te h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e o n A p ri l 2 1 , 1 9 8 6
. See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 5( 1) (Rev. 2007). J acks on com pl ai ned thathi s court - appoi nt ed att orneys had i nadequa t el y i nv e s t i ga t e d the pr e vi ou s c on vi c t i on s onw hi c h the habi tual
- of f enderport i on of the indi ctm ent w as based, and that hi s guil ty p l ea had b een indu ced invo l un t ari l y b ecause hi s att orneys had as s ur ed hi m he w oul d, undera pr earr anged p l ea ag re ement , pl ead t o the
r educe d char ge of

m ans l aught er . I n the tr i al
- courtpr ocee di ngs on J acks on’ s 1986 m ot i on f or 3 PC R , the St at e as s ert ed the thr ee- years t atut e of l i m i t at i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 39- 5( 2)
. T he tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed J acks on’ s 1986 PC R m ot i on w i tho ut a he ar i ng bas ed on the pr ocedur al barof the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons and “on the bas i s of i t s m er i t . ” ¶ 5 . On ap p e a l , th i s Co u rth e l d th a tth e th r e e - y e a rl i mi t a t i o n pe r i o d o f th e UPC CRA
o p e ra te s p ro s p e c tiv e ly
. J a c kso n v. Sta te , 5 0 6 S o . 2 d 9 9 4 , 9 9 4 -95 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ Ja c ks on I ”)T h e U P C C R A w a s e n a c ted o n A p ril 1 7 , 1 9 8 4 . S o “ [i] n d iv idu a ls c o n v icte d p rio r to 4 A pri l 17 , 19 84 , ha[d] three ( 3) years f rom A pri l 17 , 19 84 , t o fi le the irpeti t i on forpo st convi ct i on r el i ef

. ” O do m v. Sta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). T he cr i m e of

burgl ary r equi r es the br eaki ng and ent er i ng of a dw el l i ng of

another 5 w ith the inte n t t o c o m m it anothercr i m e there in. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -17 -23 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). 4 ( ci t i ng O do m v. Sta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). T h ere fore , w e fo u n d th at th e tr ial co u rt 4 clea rl y w a s in e rror for a p p lying the tim e b ar to Ja ck so n . W e re v erse d the tri al co u rt ’s d ism iss a l o f Ja c k so n ’s 1 9 8 6 P C R m o tio n a n d re m a n d e d the c a se fo r d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e fa c ts
o f Jack so n ’s sub stan ti v e claim , eith er th rou g h review of th e tr an script of th e g u il ty plea , if
s u ff ic ie n t, o r th ro u g h a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . ¶6. U pon r emand, the tr i al courti s s ued an or deron J anuary 27, 1989, ei therdi s m i s s i ng or den ying Jacks on’ s PC R m ot i on. J acks on appea l ed thator dert o thi s C ourt , w hi ch af f i rm ed
w ith o u t o p in io n o n O c to b e r 2 4 , 1 9 9 0
. J a c kso n v. Sta te , 568 So. 2d 1212 (M i s s . 1990) (N o. 8 9 -K P -00 2 7 2 ) (“ Ja ckson II ”)
. J acks on f

i l ed anotherPC R m ot i on i n the tr i al courti n 1993. T h e tri al courtei ther di sm i ssed ordenied this m oti on as w el l , i ssui ng i t s order o n F eb rua ry 2 6 , 1 9 9 3
. Jac k so n ap p ea led, an d on D ec em b er 7, 19 9 5 , th is C o u rtaffi rm ed , on ce a g a in
w ith o u t o p in io n . J

a ckso n v. S ta te , 665 S o. 2d 1356 ( M i s s . 1995) ( N o. 93- K P- 01208) (“ Ja ckson III

”). ¶7. I n 1997, thi s C ourtdeci ded Sta te v. B e rr y h ill, 703 So. 2d 250 ( M i s s . 1997)
. W e r el i ed on tw o pr evi ous cas es t o hol d thatw hen a per s on i s i ndi ct ed f orcapi t al m ur derpr edi cat ed on bur gl ary, the i ndi ctm entm usts t at e the under l yi ng of f ens e thatcompri s ed the bur gl ary. 55

B e rr y h ill, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d a t 2 5 4 -5 6
. See L a m b e r t v. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ); Mo o re v. Sta te , 3 4 4 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 5 (M is s . 1 9 7 7 ). ¶ 8
. O n M a rc h 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , Ja c k so n filed a n a p p lica tio n in th is C o u rt fo r lea v e to p ro c e e d in the tr i al courtw i th a new P C R m ot i on ( N o. 1999- M
- 00547)
. T he bas i s of J acks on’ s pr opos ed PC R m ot i on w as thatnew l y di s cover ed evi dence coul d r ai s e a r eas onabl e doubtas t o w hether Jac k so n h ad , in fac t, ca u sed Jo sep h ine T o d d ’s d ea th. O n A u g u st 6, 1 9 9 9 , a p an el of this C o u rt d e n ied Ja c k so n ’s ap p lica tio n , fin d in g th a t “ [a] p rio r a p p lica tio n w a s d e n ied b y th is C o u rt in
case no. 89- K [ P]
- 00272. ” So w e hel d s i m pl y that“ J acks on’ s pr es entmot i on i s ba rr ed as a
s u c c e s s iv e w ri t p u rs u a n t to M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (9 ).” ¶9
. O n Ja n u a ry 1 7 , 20 0 2 , Jack so n ag ain so u g h t leav e o f th is C o u rt to p u rsu e p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef

i n the tr i al c ourt(N o. 2001- M
- 00864)
. I n J acks on’ s pr opos ed PC R m ot i on,
a ttac h e d to h is a p p lica tio n , Ja c k so n a rg u e d fo r th e first tim e th a t B e rr y h ill i s an i nt erveni ng d ec isi o n o f th is C o u rtw h ich in v ali d ates h is i n d ictm en t, o r at least th e c ap it al po rt ion there o f. Jackson al so argued that hi s i nd i ctm ent w as defect i ve b ecause itfai l ed to i nclude the p hrase “w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw , ” a r equi r ed el ementof capi t al m ur der
. W i thoutaddr es s i ng the
s ubs t ant i ve mer i t s of

J acks on’ s cl ai m s , a panel of thi s C ourtdeni ed J acks on’ s appl i cat i on on J une 6, 2002, f

i ndi ng that“the pet i t i on [ w as ] pr ocedur al l y barr ed as a s ucce s s i ve w r i tpur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27( 9)
. ” ¶1 0
. O n M arc h 1, 2 0 0 4 , Jack so n fi led a do cu m en t en tit led “ P e tit io n fo r E x tra o rdin ary C irc u m sta n c e s R e v iew ,” w h ic h th is C o u rt tre a ted a s a n o th e r a p p lica tio n fo r p e rm iss io n to
s eek pos t - convi ct i on re l i ef i n the tr i al court(N o. 2003-M
- 01858)
. J acks on agai n ar gued thatB egi nni ng af t erthe deni al of

hi s 2002 appl i cat i on, and cont i nui ng af t erthe deni al 6 o f h is 2 0 0 4 ap p lica tio n , Ja c k so n filed se v e ra l d o c u m e n ts in th is C o u rt se e k in g c e rtio ra ri, m andamus, “ di s cr et i onary r evi ew , ” r ehea r i ng, a nd r econs i der at i on of the deni al s . J acks on cont i nued t o r ai s e hi s ar gum ent s conce rni ng B e rr y h ill a n d th e p h ra se “w ith o u t th e a u th o rity of l aw ” i n al l of

thos e f i l i ngs . B utthi s C ourtdeni ed al l of thos e mot i ons w i thoutaddr es s i ng th e irs u b s ta n tiv e m e ri ts . T he St at e as s ert ed i n i t s appel l at e br i ef thatJ acks on’ s not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y. 7 A l though J acks on has as s ert ed hi s r i ght s under the so- cal l ed “pr i s on m ai l box rul e, ” the r ecor d bef

or e us cont ai ns no e vi dence of the dat e w hen J acks on de l i ver ed hi s not i ce of appea l to p ri so n o ffi cials. N o n ethe less, “b ec au se p roc ed u res fo r cr i m i nalap p e a ls a p p ly to p o stc o n v ictio n re lief p ro c e e d in g s, M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 5 (1 ); W ill ia m s v. Sta te , 456 So. 2d 6 thi s C ourts houl d appl y B e rr y h ill and i nval i dat e hi s i ndi ctm entand thatthe i ndi ctm entw as otherw i se d efe cti ve for om i tt i ng the p hrase “w i tho ut the au tho ri ty o f l aw . ” Jackson al so
a rg u e d th a t th is C o u rt u n c o n stitu tio n a lly a n d u n re a so n a b ly h a d ap p lied th e su c c e ss iv e -w rit pr ocedur al bart o hi s 1999 and 2002 appl i cat i ons . O nce agai n, how ever , w i thoutaddr es s i ng it s m erit s, this C o u rtd en ied J a c k so n ’s ap p li ca ti o n o n Ju ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , fi n d ing it , “li k e o thers f i l ed pr evi ous l y by J acks on, [ t o be ] ba rr ed as a s ucce s s i ve w r i tpur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (9 ).” 6 ¶11. U ndet err ed, J acks on f i l ed the i ns t antPC R mot i on i n the ci r cui tcourton N ovember 14, 2007. I n thi s m ot i on, J acks on agai n ar gued thathi s capi t al
- m ur deri nd i ct m ent w as
co n sti tuti o n all y insu ffi cien t un d er B e rr y h ill and bec aus e i tom i tt ed the phr as e “w i thoutthe author i ty of

l aw . ” B as ed on thi s C ourt ’ s di s pos i t i ons of J acks on’ s 2002 and 2004 appl i cat i ons , the ci r cui tcourtdi s m i s s ed Ja cks on’ s 2007 PC R m ot i on on D ece m ber4, 2007, fi nd i ng i tt o b e barr ed as a successi ve w ri t . J ackson appealed on Janu ary 7, 20 08 , and the case
w as ass i gn ed to the C ou rtof A pp eal s. 71 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ) [ su p e rc e de d

b y r u le a s s ta tedin H

a rr is v. Sta te , 826 So. 2d 765, 767 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002] , [ thi s ] Courtmay s us pend the rul es a nd e xt end the t i m e f ort aki ng an appea l i n th[ e] s e pr ocee di ngs . ” M i s s . R . A pp. P. 2(c ) cm t . W e her eby s us pend the oper at i on o f th e th irty -d a y a p p e a l ti m e u n d e r R u le 4 (a ) o f th e M iss iss ip p i R u les o f A p p e llate P rocedu re, and hol d thatJ acks on’ s not i ce of appea l , f

i l ed thi rty- f

ourdays af

t erthe tr i al court ’ s entry of

j udgm ent , w as t i m el y. 7 ¶ 1 2
. Th e Co u rto f

Ap p e a l s a f

f i rme d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f J a c k s o n ’ s l a t e s t P CR
m o tio n , e x p la in in g th a t “J a c k so n ’s m o tio n is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d a s a n im p e rm iss ib le
su b se q u e n t atte m p t to o b tain p o st-c o n v ictio n relie f, as Ja c k so n h a s fa iled to s h o w th a t itfa lls
w i thi n a ny of

the s t atut ory e xcept i ons t o the s ucce s s i ve- w r i tbar
. ” J a c kso n v. Sta te , 2 0 0 9 WL 4 4 1 4 4 0 , * 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . F e b . 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a lso h e ldth a t “th e c irc u it
c o u rt w as w ith o u t j u ri sd ict io n to e n ter tain Ja c k so n ’s m o tio n a b se n t lea v e o f th e su p re m e c o u rt,
w hi c h J a c ks on d i d no to bt a i n[ , ] ” b e c a us e thi s Courth a d “ l a s te xe r c i s e d j ur i s di c t i on i n the
cas e. ” I d . ( ci t i ng P e rr

y v. Sta te , 759 So
. 2 d 1269, 1270 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000) ; M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ))
. ¶13. J acks on f

i l ed hi s pet i t i on f

ora w r i tof

cert i or ar i , ar gui ng thatthi s C ourthad j ur i s di ct i on t o de t erm i ne hi s PC R mot i on a nd thathi s mot i on w as e xcept ed f r om pr ocedur al bars. T he St at e di d notr es pond t o J acks on’ s pet i t i on. W e g rant ed the pet i t i on, and i n ouror i gi nal
o p in io n , w e re v e rse d J a c k so n ’s c ap ital-m u rd e r c o n v ictio n . W e h e ld(1 ) th a t th e trial c o u rt d id have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derJ acks on’ s 2007 PC R mot i on butthatthi s Courtc oul d r eac h the
m er i t s of pr oper l y f

i l ed PC R m ot i ons thathad bee n di s m i s s ed ordeni ed; ( 2) thathi s m ot i on
w a s e x c e p ted fr o m p ro c e d u ra l b a rs; (3 ) th a t B e rr y h ill v o ided the c ap it al po rt ion o f Jac k so n ’s i ndi ctm ent ; and ( 4) thathi s i ndi ctm entdi d notc har ge s i m pl e m ur derorm ans l aught er , s i nce8

i tom i tt ed the w or ds “w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw . ” Fi ndi ng thatthe i ndi ctm entchar ged no
c r i me , we r e ma n d e d wi th o u tp r e j u d i c e t o th e S t a t e ’ s r i g h tt o p r o c e e d wi th a p r o p e r l y d r a wn in d ic tm e n t. ¶ 1 4
. T h e S tate filed a m o tio n fo r r e h e a rin g , a rg u in g (1 ) th a t th e tria l c o u rt ra th e r th a n th is C ourts houl d cons i derthe PC R m ot i on; ( 2) thats i nce B e r r y h ill had notbeen appl i ed
r etr oact i vel y, the ca s e coul d nots at i s f y J acks on’ s i nt erveni ng- deci s i on cl ai m , and ( 3) that J a c k s o n ’ s i n d i c tme n twa s n o td e f e c t i v e f o ro mi tt i n g th e p h r a s e “ wi th o u tth e a u th o r i ty o f l a w”
o r “ u n la w fu lly ” b e c a u s e it in c lu d e d th e w o rd “ fe lo n io u s ly .” ¶15. A f

t er f urther r evi ew , w e f

i nd err or s of l aw , and w e w i thdr aw our or i gi nal opi ni on and
s ubs t i tut e thi s opi ni on, r ever s i ng the C ourtof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on and the tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al
a n d re m a n d in g th is c a s e to th e tr ia l c o u rtfo r f u rth e r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p ro c e e d in g s . W e fi n d that th e W arren C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rtsho u ld ex erc ise i n it ial j u ri sd ict ion o v er Ja ck so n ’s P C R m o tio n . DI S CU S S I ON ¶16. A tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al of a mot i on f

orpost -convict i on rel i ef w i l l notbe r ever s ed absent a fi nd i ng thatthe tr i al cou rt ’s decis i on w as cl earl y err on eou s. B ro w n v. Sta te , 731 So. 2d 595, 598 ( M i s s . 1999)
. H ow ever , w hen i s s ues of l aw ar e r ai s ed, the p roper st andar d of revi ew i s de novo
. I

d. I . Juri s di ct i on ¶17. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 39- 5 pr ovi des that “[ a] ny per s on s ent ence d by a courtof
re cor d of the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi
. . . m ay f

i l e a m ot i on t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de o rc orr ectthe9

jud g m en t or sen tenc e [ba sed o n sev era l app li ca b le crit eria]
. ” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -5 ( R ev. 2 00 7) (emphasi s added)
. W her e ther e has been no di r ectappea l of hi s convi ct i on or
s e n t e n c e , th e p r i s o n e rmu s tf i l e th i s P CR m ot i on , s om et i m es cal l ed a “ PC R pet i t i on, ” “a s an
or i gi nal ci vi l act i on i n the tr i al court . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 7 ( R ev. 2007)
. B ut i f the pr i s oner ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence w er e di r ect l y appea l ed, and ei therthe convi ct i on w as af f i rm ed orthe appea l di s m i s s ed by thi s C ourt , then he mustf i l e an appl i cat i on in this C o u rt fo r leav e to pro ce ed i n th e tr ial co u rtan d i n clud e the pro p o sed P C R m o ti o n w ith h is
ap p lic a tio n . M is s . C o d e A n n . § § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ) a n d 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶1 8. B eca us e J ac ks on p l e a de d gu i l ty i n 19 79 , ad i r e c tapp e a l o f h i s c onvi ct i on w as not permi tt e d. M i s s . Code Ann. § 9 9- 35
- 10 1 ( Rev. 2 00 7)
. Bec a us e the r e h a s b e e n no di r ect
a p p ea l of h is co n v ict ion o r sen tenc e, Jac k so n m u st f il e h is PC R m o ti o n s in the tr ial c o u rt. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). See Ma rtin v. Sta te , 5 5 6 S o. 2d 35 7, 35 9 (M i ss. 1990) ( ci t i ng McD o n a ll v. Sta te , 465 So. 2d 1077 ( M i s s . 1985) ) ( “I n c as es w her e the pr i s oner has ent er ed a pl ea of

gui l ty, the tr i al courthas excl us i ve, or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on t o hearand det erm i ne a pe t i t i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef
. ”)
. J acks on’ s or i gi nal , 1986 “mot i on t o vaca t e”
a n d h i s P CR f

i l i n g s i n 1 9 9 3 a n d 2 0 0 7 we r e p r o p e r l y f i l e d P CR m ot i ons . B utJ acks on i ncorr ect l y f

i l ed i n thi s C ourtthr ee appl i cat i ons fo r lea v e to p ro c e e d in th e tri a l co u rt ( i
. e. , to g e tpe rmi s s i o n t o f

i l e n e w PC R m ot i ons in th e trial c o u rt), in 1 9 9 9 , 2 0 0 2 , an d 2 0 0 4 . T h is C o u rt deni ed

al l thr ee appl i cat i ons , f i ndi ng them t o be i m perm i s s i bl e s ucce s s i ve w r i t s under S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (9 ).10

¶19. W hen w e char act er i zed ourdi s pos i t i on of J acks on’ s 1999 appl i cat i on as a deni al , we
w e re s tatin g th a t th e m e rits o f th e P C R m o tio n h a d b e e n re v iew e d a n d re jec ted o r th a t h is
ar gum ents w ere barr ed on r es j udi cata o r w a iv e r g ro u n d s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 2 7 (9 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h is w a s n o t th e ca se . W e d idn o t m a k e a “ fin a l d e ter m in a tio n g o in g to the mer i t s of

the under l yi ng convi ct i on and s ent ence . ” Ma rtin , 556 So. 2d at359. N onethel es s , w e had, i n f act , “ exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on” overJ acks on’ s PC R pr ocee di ngs , and “[ t ] here i s . . . g eneral langua ge i n ou r pri or cases t o the eff ectthatthe co urtt o las texerci se ju ri s d ic tio n in th e c a s e h a s e x c lu s iv e , o ri g in a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r th e p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p e titio n .” Ma rtin , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ); McD o n a ll , 46 5 S o. 2d at10 78
. B ased on these
au tho ri ti es, th e tri al co u rtan d the C o u rto f A p p ea ls f o u n d that, w h en w e “ d en ied” Jac k so n ’s 1999 appl i cat i on, w e as s um ed j ur i s di ct i on overJac ks on’ s P C R proc eedi ngs t o the exc l us i on of the tr i al court . B utthe ca s es ci t ed above pr es uppos ed thatthi s C ourthad pr oper j ur i s di ct i on t o exer ci s e, w hi ch i s notthe ca s e her e. ¶20
. P ursuantt o S ect i on 99- 39- 7 and Ma rtin , thi s Courtw a s w i tho utj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der Jackson ’s 19 99 , 20 02 , and 20 04 app l i cat i on s forl eave t o p roceed in the tr i al cou rt , becau se Jac k so n ’s co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e w ere n ev er d ir ec tl y a p p ea led. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); Ma rtin , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 8 . T h e o n ly w a y in w h ich th is C o u rt p ro p e rly c o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d Ja c k so n ’s P C R filing s w o u ldh a v e b e e n if Ja c k so n h a d first p re se n ted h is PC R m ot i on t o the tr i al court , thatcourthad deni ed r el i ef , an d Jacks on had appe al ed that deci s i on t o thi s C ourtpur s uantt o Sect i on 99 -39-25. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 25 ( R ev.“A fi n al j u d g m en t entere d u n d er this arti cle m ay b e re v iew ed b y the s u p rem e c o u rt 8 of M i s s i s si ppi on appea l br oughtei therby the pr i s onerorthe s t at e on s uch t erm s and condi t i ons as ar e pr ovi ded f ori n cr i m i nal cas es . ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 25( 1) ( R ev. 2 0 0 7 ). I f

a pr i s oner ’ s convi ct i on and sent ence w er e neverdi r ect l y appea l ed, then, pur s uant 9 t o S e c t i o n s 9 9
- 3 9
- 7 a n d 9 9
- 3 9
- 2 7 , th i s Co u rti s n o tp e rmi tt e d t o e n t e rt a i n th e p r i s o n e r ’ s P CR m ot i on unt i l i thas been rul ed upon by the ci r cui tcourtand appe al ed t o thi s C ourtunder S ec ti o n 9 9 -39 -25
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 9 9 -39 -7, 99 -39 -27 , an d 9 9 -39 -25 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ); Ma rtin , 556 So. 2d at358- 59. 11 2 0 0 7 ); Ma rtin , 556 So. 2d at358. Regar di ng J acks on’ s m i s f i l ed appl i cat i ons , thi s had not 8 hap pen ed, so this C ou rtdid nothave s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n those app l i cat i on s, atf i r s ti ns t ance , orthe mer i t s of the PC R m ot i ons att ache d ther et o. 9 ¶21. Put s i m pl y, the f at al f l aw i n J acks on’ s 1999, 2002, and 2004 appl i cat i ons w as notthat th e y w e re su c c e ss iv e w rits, b u t th a t th e y w e re filed in th e w ro n g c o u rt. S o w e im p ro p e rly
exer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on and deni ed J acks on’ s appl i cat i ons . M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39- 7 ( R ev. 2007)
. W e s houl d have mer el y dis m is s ed the appl i cat i ons w i thoutpr ej udi ce f orbe i ng f

i l ed in th e w ro n g c o u rta n d d ir e c te d J a c k s o n to fi le h is P C R m o tio n s in th e tr ia l c o u rt . Ma rtin , 556 So. 2d at358 ( “thi s pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef act i on i ni t i at ed by M art i n m us tbe di s m i s s ed
w ith o u t p re

ju d ice a s h a v in g b e e n filed in th e w ro n g c o u rt” ). W e ro u tin e ly d ism iss m ista k e n ly f i l ed appl i cat i ons , buts uch ac t i on by thi s C ourtdoes nots tr i p the tr i al courtof j uri sdi ct i on. Ma rtin , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 9
. ¶22. T her ef

or e, as thi s C ourt w as w i thout j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n them, w e vaca t e and s et
as i de ourdeni al s of

J acks on’ s 1999, 2002, and 2004 appl i cat i ons . W hi l e Sect i on 99- 39- 25 gi ves thi s C ourtj ur i s di ct i on t o addr es s J acks on’ s di s m i s s ed 2007 PC R m ot i on, the W arr en12

C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtshou l d ex erci se in it i al j uri sdi ct i on ov er J ackson ’s P C R proceed i ng s. M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 99- 39- 25( 1) , 99- 39- 7 ( R ev. 2007) I I . U P C C R A Succes s i ve- W ri t B ar ¶23. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s U PC C R A i ncl udes s ever al pr ocedur al bar s , but w e l i m i t ourdi s cus s i on t o the successi ve-w ri tbar, the o ne ad dress ed b y the tri al cou rtand the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶ 2 4
. B a se d o n this C o u rt’s d isp o sitio n s o f Ja c k so n ’s 2 0 0 2 a n d 2 0 0 4 a p p lica tio n s, th e c irc u it
c o u rt d ism iss e d Ja c k so n ’s 2 0 0 7 P C R m o tio n , fin d in g it t o b e b a rr e d a s a s u c c e ss iv e w rit p u rs u a n t to S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 3 (6 ), a n d th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls a g re e d
. Ja c ks on , 2 0 0 9 WL 4 4 1 4 4 0 , a t * 2
. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -23 (6) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶25. Sect i on 99- 39- 23( 6) pr ovi des the s ucce s s i ve- w r i t bar f or PC R m ot i ons . I t s t at es that

“ a n y o rd e r d ism iss in g the p e tit io n e r’s m o tio n o r o th e rw ise d e n y in g re lief u n d e r th is a rticle is a f i nal j udgm entand s hal l be conc l us i ve unt i l rever sed. I ts hal l be a ba rt o a s econd or
s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n u n d e r th is a rt ic le .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 3 (6 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶2 6. H er e, w e have vaca t ed ourd e ni a l s o f J a c ks on ’ s 2 00 2 a nd2004 appl i cat i ons – the den i al s that pr om pted the tr i al cou rtt o ap ply the succ essi ve-w ri tbar. T heref ore, w e revers e th e tria l c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f J a c k s o n ’s m o tio n u n d e r th e s u c c e s s iv e -w ri t b a r. See M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 3 (6 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶27. I n s um , J acks on pr oper l y f i l ed hi s 2007 PC R mot i on i n the tr i al court underSect i ons 99 -39-5 and 99 -39-7, and he p roperl y ap pealed the tri al court ’s di sm i ssal of the m oti on , as a
su cc essiv e w ri t, to this C o u rtu n d er S ec ti o n 9 9 -39 -25
. W e re c o g n ize tha t th e tri al co u rt d ism issed the m o ti o n as a su cc essiv e w ri t bas ed o n o u r 20 0 2 an d 2 0 0 4 d en ial s o f Jac k so n ’s13

ap p li ca ti o n s, an d that the C o u rto f A p p ea ls interpre ted o u r de n ial s as re jecti o n s o f Jac k so n ’s
ar gum ent s . B ut , havi ng s etas i de ourdeni al s , w e r ever se the tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al and the Co u rto f Ap p e a l s ’ d e c i s i o n . S i n c e th e ap p e l l a t e r e c o r d d o e s n o tr e s o l v e th e i s s u e s r a i s e d , we
re m a n d to th e tr ia l c o u rtfo r f u rth e r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p ro c e e d in g s . CO NC L US I ON ¶28. A s thi s Courtw as w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n them, w e vac at e and s etas i de our deni al s of

Jac ks on’ s 1999, 2002, and 2004 appl i cat i ons . A l though thi s C ourthas j ur i s di ct i on to a d d re ss Ja c k so n ’s d ism iss e d 2 0 0 7 P C R m o tio n , the W a rre n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt sh o u ld
exer ci s e i ni t i al j ur i s di ct i on overJ acks on’ s PC R pr ocee di ngs . W e r ever s e the dec i s i on of the C ourtof A ppeal s and the tr i al court ’ s di s m i s s al and r eman d this case t o the tr i al courtf or fu rth e r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p ro c e e d in g s . ¶ 2 9
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. CARL S ON, P . J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TCHENS , CHANDL ER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. DI CK I NSON, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART A ND I N RESULT W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .