I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CA- 0 0 8 1 4 - S CT S T EV E K NOX , M ICHEL L E B YR OM

, BLAY DE GRAYSON, BEN

NY J OE STEVEN

S, GERALD HO LLAND, J

AN M ICHAEL BRAW

NER, RODNEY GRAY , J EF FR EY HAV AR D, RICHA RD J

OR DA N, THONG LE, W

I LL I E M ANNI NG, W I LL I AM M ITCHEL L, S TEP

HEN POW

ERS , LAR RY M AT TH EW PU CK ET T, G AR Y CA RL SI

M M ON S, AND ALAN DALEW

ALK ER v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 14/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . W I LL I AM H. S I NGLET ARY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : J AM E S W . CR AI G BR I AN F . M CD ONOUG H GE RA L D S . HAR T M AN AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L B Y : H A R O L D E D W A R D P IZ Z E T T A , III M A R V IN L . W H IT E , J R . NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 01/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . O n M a y 6 , 2 0 1 0 , s ix tee n d e a th -se n ten c e d in m a tes , in c lu d in g S te v e K n o x , M ich e lle B yr om , B l ayde G r ays on, B enny Joe S t evens , G er al d H ol l and, J an M i chae l B r aw ner , R odney G r ay, J ef f r e y Havar d, Ri c har d J or dan, Thon g Le , W i l l i e M ann i ng , W i l l i am M i t chel l , St ephen

### S ince the comp laint w as filed, appel l ant s G er al d H ol l and, Rodney G r ay, and B enny 1 J oe St evens have be en exe cut ed pur s uantt o thei rs ent ence s of death. 

### 2 P o w ers, L arry M atth ew P u ck ett , G ary C arl S im m o n s, a n d A lan D ale W alke r (th e inm ates), f i l ed a compl ai nti n the C hance ry Courtf orthe Fi r s tJudi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. T he 1 es s ence of

the i nm at es ’ compl ai ntw as that , due t o def ect s i n both the s t atut ory s tructur e and the p erfo rm an ce o f th e M issi ssipp i O ffi ce o f C ap it al P o st- C o n v ict ion C o u n sel (M O C P C C ), they w er e depr i ved of

thei rr i ghtt o obt ai n m eani ngf ul s t at e pos t - convi ct i on and f eder al h ab e a s c o rp u s re v ie w o f th e irc o n v ic tio n s a n d d e a th s e n te n c e s . ¶2. T he i nm at es r eques t ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tthe St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi due t o al l eged vi ol at i ons of

thei rr i ght s t o compet ent , appoi nt ed, post - convi ct i on counse l . I n part i cul ar , the inm ates req u ested that the c h an ce ry c o u rten join the S tat e fro m o p p o sing the fil ing o f a s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i n eac h i nm at e’ s case, fr om r eques t i ng exec ut i on dat es f

orany of them, and f

r om oppos i ng a s t ay of

exec ut i on i n any ca s e i nvol vi ng one of the i nm at es . T he St at e m oved t o di s m i s s f orl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. A f

t era hear i ng, the chanc ery courtf

ound thati tl acke d subj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthe compl ai ntbecaus e the inm at es’ “att ack o n the death sent ences an d p ost -convict i on j ud i ci al revi ew s of [ their] convict i ons ” w as cogni zabl e underthe U ni f orm Post - C onvi ct i on C ol l at er al R el i ef A ct (U P C C R A ). T h e c h a n c e ry c o u rtd is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t. ¶3. W e aff

i rm . T he chan cery cou rt l acks j uri sdi ct i on ov er the i nm at es’ cl ai m s becau se th o s e c la im s a re e m b ra c e d b y th e U P C C R A . FACTS I . Th e i n ma t e s ’ c l a i ms

### 3

¶ 4 . T h e in m a tes a rg u e th a t th e d e fic ien t p e rfo rm a n c e o f M O C P C C v io late d th e ir rig h t to th e e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c o u n s e l in th e ird e a th -p e n a lty c a s e s . See P u c k e tt v. Sta te , 8 3 4 S o . 2 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); J a c kso n v. Sta te , 73 2 S o. 2d 18 7, 19 0-91 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). E ffe c tiv e Ju ly 1 , 2 0 0 0 , the L e g isla tu re c re a ted M O C P C C to p ro v id e ap p o in ted p o stconvi ct i on couns el t o death- r ow i nm at es . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 105 ( R ev. 2007) . T he governi ng l egi s l at i on gave the C hi ef J us t i ce of

thi s C ourtthe author i ty t o appoi ntthe di r ect or of M O C P C C , w i th the app roval of a m aj ori ty of j ust i ces vot i ng , f or a t erm of fou r ye ars . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -10 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e statutes g av e the C h ief Justi ce su p erv isory a n d ter m in a tio n a u th o rity o v e r th e d ire c to r a n d re q u ire d th e d ire c to r to su b m it m o n th ly r eport s . M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39- 103 ( R ev. 2007) ; M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39 -115 (R ev. 2 0 0 7 ). H o w e v e r, th e L e g isla tu re a m e n d e d S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -1 0 3 e ffe c tiv e M a rc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , to gr antthe G overnor , w i th the advi ce and cons entof the Senat e, the pow ert o appoi ntand re m o v e th e d ire c to r. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -1 0 3 (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ); see al so §§ 99- 39- 107; 99- 3 9 -1 1 5 (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ). ¶5. T he i nm at es al l eged thatthe L egi s l atur e’ s grantof the pow ert o the C hi ef

J us t i ce of the Supr eme C ourtt o appoi nt , s upervi s e, a nd r emove the di r ect orof M O C PC C vi ol at ed the s epar at i on - of

- po w e r s c l a us e o f

the M i s s i s s i pp i Cons t i tut i on . M i s s . Cons t . a rt1 , § 2. They ar gued thatthe uncons t i tut i onal st atut ory s tructur e of the of f i ce r es ul t ed i n i t s pr ovi s i on of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. A s re d re ss fo r th is h a rm , th e in m a tes s o u g h t an o p p o rtu n ity to p re s e n t n e w p o s t- c o n v ic tio n c la im s th ro u g h a p ro p e rl y -s tru c tu re d M O C P C C . ¶6 . A c c o rd ing t o th e inm ate s, th e d ire c to r h a d filed in a d e q u a te m o tio n s fo r p o stc o n v ictio n re lief in th e ir c a se s w ith o u t co n d u c tin g a n a d e q u a te in v e stig a tio n in to th e g u ilt

### 4

and s ent enci ng phas es of the tr i al s and w i thoutra i s i ng al l m er i t or i ous cl ai m s . T he i nm at es a lleg e d th a t M O C P C C ’s o m iss io n s a m o u n ted to a fa ilu re to p ro v id e m e a n in g fu l p o stconvi ct i on r epr es ent at i on, thatthe St at e had de ni ed them due pr oces s of l aw , and thatthey had bee n deni ed meani ngf ul acc es s t o the courts ys t em. T hey soug ht the f ol l ow i ng r el i ef f r om the chancery court : ( 1) a dec l ar at i on thatthei rr i ght s to com pet entand cons ci ent i ous pos t - convi ct i on counse l and t o m eani ngf ul acc es s t o the courts ys t em have been vi ol at ed; ( 2) a pr el i m i nary and perm anenti nj unct i on r equi r i ng the Stat e to pr ovi de compet entand cons ci ent i ou s pos t - convi ct i on couns el i n s ubs equentpr ocee di ngs ; ( 3) a pr el i m i nary and p e rm a n e n t in

ju n c tio n req u irin g the S tate to p e rm it th e m to file s u c c e ss iv e m o tio n s fo r p o stconvi ct i on r el i ef

, and t o have thos e mot i ons deci ded on the mer i t s ; ( 4) a pr el i m i nary and perm anenti nj unct i on enj oi ni ng the St at e f r om ar gui ng thei rcl ai m s ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed, ex h au sted , o r de fau lt ed ; ( 5 ) a d ec larati o n th a t M O C P C C h ad v iolated th e se p ara ti o n -ofpow er s pr ovi s i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on; ( 6) a pr el i m i nary and perm anent i nj unct i on r equi r i ng thatthe exe cut i ve appoi ntthe di r ect orof M O C PC C ; ( 7) a perm anent inj un ct i on r equ i ri ng M O C P C C t o prepare s em i ann ual report s forthe nex tf ive y ea rs demonstr at i ng i ti s pr ovi di ng compet entcouns el ; ( 8) a perm anenti nj unct i on p r ovi di ng f or the appoi ntm entof

an i ndepende ntm oni t ort o over s ee the St at e’ s act i ons i n di r ect i ng and admi ni s t er i ng the w ork of M O C PC C ; (9) an aw ar d of att orney’ s f

ees and cos t s ; and ( 10) any fu rth e r r e lie f d e e m e d ju s t, e q u ita b le , a n d p ro p e r. ¶ 7 . O n M a y 8 , 2 0 1 0 , th e in m a te s fi le d a M o tio n fo r a T e m p o r a ry R e s tr a in in g O rd e r, a P reli m inary Inju n cti o n , an d an E x p ed it ed H ea ri n g o n P lai n ti ff’s M o tion for a P reli m inary I nj unct i on C om bi ned w i th a Tri al on the M er i t s , al ong w i th a support i ng m emora ndum of

### 5

law . T h e inm ates a tt ac h ed the a ffi d av it s o f form er d ir ec tors C . Ja ck so n W il li am s an d R o b ert R y a n , atte stin g th a t M O C P C C h a d b e e n o v e rw o rk e d , u n d e rsta ffe d , an d u n d e rfu n d e d . In h is aff i dav i t , R yan st at ed thatw hen he b ecam e the dir ect or, M O C P C C had tw enty- seven c ases. R yan s t at ed thathe had nothad t i m e t o f i l e f undi ng r eques t s , conductful l i nves t i gat i ons , or adequa t el y r es ear ch i s s ues . T he i nm at es al s o att ache d the s upport i ng af fi dav i t s of

other M O C P C C e m p lo y e e s . ¶8. T he St at e f

i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of subj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. A ccor di ng t o the St at e, the cl ai m s ra i s ed by the i nm at es fe l l squar el y w i thi n the U PC C R A . T her ef or e, the St at e ar gued, the chancery courtl acke d s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on. I I . T he cha ncery court ’ s rul i ng ¶9. T he ch ancery co urtrul ed that i tlacked subj ectm att er j uri sdi ct i on ov er the inm at es’ cl ai m s . T he cha ncery courtnot ed thatm att er s cogni zabl e under the U PC C R A s houl d be d e c id e d u n d e r th a t sta tu te, a n d th a t th e in m a tes ’ c laim s w e re , in r e a lity , an a ttac ko n th e p o stconvi ct i on r evi ew of

thei rconvi ct i ons and dea th s ent ence s underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 39- 5. M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39- 5 ( Supp. 2011) . T her ef or e, the chancery courthel d, the inm ates’ claim s co u ld b e li ti g ated o n ly u n d er the t erm s of th e U P C C R A . T h e c h an ce ry c o u rt r ecogni zed that , underthe U PC C R A , w hen a c onvi ct i on and s ent ence have be en af f i rm ed on d i r e c tap p e a l , amo t i o n s h a l l n o tb e f i l e d i n th e tr i a l c o u rtwi th o u ta n o r d e rf r o m th e S u p r e me C ou rtdir ect i ng the fi l i ng of the m oti on . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-39-7 (Su pp . 20 11 ). B ecause eac h i nm at e’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence had bee n r evi ew ed on di rectap peal , and no perm i s s i on had bee n s oughtf orf i l i ng a mot i on, the chancery courtf ound thati tl acke dBy st atut e, mot i ons f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef notf i l ed i n the Supr eme C ourtar e f i l ed 2 as a n o ri g inal civil acti o n in the tr ial co u rt , n o t i n ch an ce ry c o u rt . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ). 

### 6 j uri s di ct i on t o cons i derany ar gum entcogni zabl e underthe U PC C R A . Forthes e r easons, 2 the chancery courtgr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s and deni ed the i nm at es ’ m ot i on f or a te m p o ra ry re s tr a in in g o rd e r a n d p e rm a n e n t in ju n c tio n . DI S CU S S I ON I . St andar d of

r evi ew ¶10. Subj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on i s athr es hol d i nqui ry thatm ustbe resol ved bef or e the c o u rta d ju d ic a te s th e m e ri ts o f a c a s e . Schm idt v. Catholic D ioces e of

B iloxi , 18 So. 3d 814, 8 2 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). T h is C o u rt re v iew s d e n o v o th e d ism iss a l o f a n a c tio n fo r la c ko f su b jec tm a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . I

d. A f aci al att ack on s ubj ect - m att erj ur i s di ct i on i s an ar gum entthatthe cou rtl acks j uri sdi ct i on as a m att er of l aw , regar dles s of the d et erm i nati on of f actual di sputes . R om an Cat

holic D ioces e v. Morr is on , 905 So. 2d 1213, 1220 ( M i s s . 2005) . W hen, as her e, there is a facial att ac ko n su b ject-m att er ju risd ict ion , the a ll eg ati o n s in the p lai n ti ff’ s c o m p la in t a re ta k e n a s tru e . Schm idt , 1 8 S o . 3 d a t8 2 2 . H o w e v e r , “ [ w ] h e n a p l a i n t i f f 's al l egat i ons of

j ur i s di ct i on ar e ques t i oned, the pl ai nt i f f be ar s the bur den t o pr ove j ur i s di ct i on by a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng R osem ou n d S an d & G ravel Co. v. L am bert Sand & G r avel

Co. , 4 6 9 F .2 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 2 )) . II. A n a ly sis ¶11 . W e ho l d that the chanc ery cou rt l acked subject m att er j uri sdi ct i on ov er the inm at es’ c laim s b e c a u se th o se c laim s a re p ro p e rly a ss e rte d u n d e r th e U P C C R A . W h ile c irc u it co u rts

### 7

ar e court s of ge ner al j ur i s di ct i on, w i th “or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on i n al l m att er s ci vi l and cr i m i nal i n thi s s t at e notves t ed i n anothercourt , ” chancery court s ar e court s of l i m i t ed j ur i s di ct i on. L aw r ence Cou nt

y Sch. D is t

. v. B r is ter , 8 2 3 S o . 2d 45 9, 46 0 (M i ss. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng M i ss. C o n st. a rt. 6 , § § 1 5 6 , 1 5 9 ). T h e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n sta tes tha t th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt sh a ll hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er the fol l ow i ng cases: ( a) A l l m att er s i n equi ty; ( b) D i vor ce and al i m ony; ( c) M att er s t es t ament ary and of admi ni s tr at i on; (d) M i no rs ' bu si ness; ( e) C as es of

i di ocy, l unacy, and per s ons of uns ound m i nd; (f) A ll ca se s o f w h ich th e s a idc o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r th e law s in fo rc e w h e n th is C ons t i tut i on i s puti n oper at i on. M i s s . C ons t . art . 6, § 1 59 . A l l cas es br oughti n chanc ery courtbutunderthe exc l us i ve j ur i s di ct i on of

the ci r cui tc ourtmustbe tr ans f err ed t o the ci r cui tcourt . M i s s . C ons t . art . 6, § 162. ¶1 2 . T h e ch an ce ry cou rt ’s p o w er to g ran t injun cti v e reli ef rests u p o n the i n ad eq u ac y o f a r emedy atl aw . A - 1 Pal let Co. v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 4 0 S o. 3 d 56 3, 5 68 (M i ss. 20 10 ). Iti s a corner s t one of

equi ty j ur i s di ct i on that“equi ty f ol l ow s the l aw , ” and “ court s of equi ty cannot m odi f y or i gnor e an una m bi guous s t atut ory pr i nci pl e i n an ef f ortt o s hape r el i ef

. ” In re E sta te o f Sm ith , 891 So. 2d 811, 813 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng I n reE s tate of

Mil ler , 840 So. 2d 703, 708 ( M i s s . 2003) ) . T he U PC C R A c ont ai ns a n e xcl us i vi ty pr ovi s i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -39 -3 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). “ T h e p u rpo se [of the U P C C R A ] is t o rev ise, str ea m li n e a n d clarif y

### 8

the rul es and s t atut es pe rt ai ni ng t o pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef l aw and pr ocedur es , t o r es ol ve any co n fl ict s the rein a n d to p rov ide th e c o u rt s o f th is st ate w ith a n e x clus ive a n d u n if o rm pr ocedur e f

orthe col l at er al r evi ew of convi ct i ons and sent ence s . ” I d. A p lea d in g c o g n iza b le underthe U PC C R A w i l l be tr eat ed as a m ot i on forpost - convi ct i on re l i ef thati s s ubj ectt o the pr ocedur al rul es pr om ul gat ed ther ei n, rega r dl es s of how the pl ai nt i f

f has denomi nat ed or c h a ra c te ri z e d th e p le a d in g . Edm ond v. Mis s. D e

p’t of Cor r e c tions , 783 So. 2d 675, 677 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); G ru b b v. Sta te , 584 S o. 2d 786, 788 ( M i s s . 1991) . C l ai m s cogni zabl e under th e U P C C R A a re o u ts id e th e e q u ity ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 99- 39- 3 ( R ev. 2007) ; M i s s . Const . a rt . 6, § 159. A mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef m us tbe f i l ed i n ci r cui tcourtu nles s, as i n the i ns t antcas e, a convi ct i on and s ent ence have be en a ffirm e d o n d ire c t a p p e a l. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ). T h e n , a m o tio n sh a ll notbe f i l ed i n the tr i al courtw i thouta n or derf r om the Supr eme C ourtdi r ect i ng the f i l i ng of th e m o tio n . I

d. ¶13. T he i nm at es ci t e Sta te v. Q u itm a n Co u n ty , 8 0 7 S o . 2 d 4 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ), in su p p o rt o f th e ir asserti o n that the c h an ce ry c o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion . In Q u itm a n Co u n ty , the c o u n ty s ued the St at e i n ci r cui tcourtf ordecl ar at ory and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , ar gui ng thats t atut es re q u irin g th e c o u n ty to fu n d in d ig e n t d e fe n se w e re u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se th e y re su lted in

“ c h ro n ic u n d e rf

u n d in g a n d s y s te m ic in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l in Q u itm a n C o u n ty .” I d. at 40 8 . T h is C o u rtstat ed tha t th e cru x o f the co u n ty’s co m p lai n t w as “ the S tat e’s fail u re t o r emedy the al l eged s ys t emi c i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el . ” I

d. O n ap p e a l, th e S tate a rg u e d th a t th e c o u n ty h a d f a ile d to s ta te a c la im fo r w h ic h re lie f c o u ld b e g ra n te d . I d. at

### 9

4 0 6 . T h is C o u rt h e ldth a t “ tak in g a s tru e th e w e ll-p led a lleg a tio n s o f th e C o u n ty ’s c o m p lain t, s uch s ys t emi c cons t i tut i onal def i ci enci es w oul d ent i t l e the C ounty t o r el i ef . ” I d. at410. ¶14. R el ying on Q u itm a n Co u n ty , the i nm at es ar gue thatthe cha ncery court had j ur i s di ct i on becaus e they seek a r emedy f ors ys t emi c def

i ci enci es i n the St at e’ s l aw s and pract i ces r el at ed to the p rovi si on of post -convict i on co un sel for death-sent enced pri soners, and thatthes e s ys t emi c def i ci enci es r es ul t ed i n thei rr ece i ptof i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of c o u n se l. W e fin d th a t Q uit m an Count

y is d istin g u ish a b le fro m the ins tan t ca se . A s th e S tate ar gues , i n Q u itm a n Co u n ty , the county s oughtpr os pect i ve r el i ef f r om the l egalbur den of fun d ing ind igen t defe n se. B u t the in m ates’ co m p lai n t f u n d am en tal ly se ek s reli ef in the form of the abi l i ty t o pur s ue f

r es h pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs w i th the as s i s t ance of compet ent couns el and no oppos i t i on f r om the St at e. A n e xami nat i on of the i nm at es ’ pr ayerf

orr el i ef rev ea ls th at, in fac t, their claim s a re fu ll y co g n izab le un d er the U P C C R A ; th ere fore , they are o u ts id e th e e q u ity ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 3 ( R ev. 2 0 0 7 ); M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 6 , § 1 5 9 . ¶15. T he U PC C R A prom ulgat es s peci f i c pr ocedur es f

or the adj udi cat i on of

i nef f ect i veas s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m s . U nderthe U PC C R A , w hen thi s C ourtal r eady ha s af f i rm ed or di s m i s s ed a pe t i t i oner ’ s di r ectappea l , the mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef m us tbe pr es ent ed to a q u o ru m o f ju stic e s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r to a llo w filing o f th e m o tio n in th e trial c o u rt. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 7 ( Supp. 2011). W hen thi s C ourti s pre s ent ed w i th an appl i cat i on to fi le a m o ti o n for p o st- co n v ictio n relief, the C o u rtsh all d en y reli ef u n less the c lai m s are notpr ocedur al l y barr ed and they make a s ubst anti al sho w i ng of the deni al of

a s t at e or f eder al r i ght . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27 ( Supp. 2011) . A bs entan appl i cabl e exc ept i on,

### 10

a s ucce s s i ve mot i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 3 9 -2 3 (6 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ); R o w la n d v. Sta te , 4 2 S o . 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ). T h is C o u rt, i n i t s di s cr et i on, m ay or derthe A tt orney G ener al t o r es pond, and the C ourtmay notgr antr el i ef u n le s s th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l h a s b e e n g iv e n a t le a s t f iv e d a y s to re s p o n d . I

d. ¶ 1 6 . T h e re lief r e q u e ste d b y th e in m a tes w o u ldre q u ire th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt to in ter fe re w ith the s e s t a tut ory p r oc e du r e s . The i nmat e s s e e k apr e l i mi na ry a ndpe rmane nti nj unct i on r equi r i ng the St at e t o perm i tthem t o f i l e s ucce s s i ve m ot i ons f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef . T hey re q u e st a n in

ju n c tio n p re v e n tin g the S tate fro m ra isin g its d e fe n se s th a t an y c laim s ra ise d in a su cc essiv e p lead ing are p roc ed u rall y b arred , e x h au sted , o r d efa u lt ed . T h is w o u ld req u ir e the chanc ery c ourtt o c ontr avene the U PC C R A by det erm i ni ng w hatdef ens es coul d be r ai s ed in p ro c e e d in g s b e fo re th is C o u rt o n a n ap p lica tio n to file a su c c e ss iv e m o tio n fo r p o stc o n v ictio n re lief u n d e r S e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 . S u c h a d e ter m in a tio n is p lain ly o u tsid e th e e q u ity ju risd ictio n o f th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); E sta te o f Sm ith , 891 So. 2d at813. ¶ 1 7 . T h e in m a tes a rg u e th a t th e c h a n c e ry co u rt i s e m p o w e re d to d e c id e w h e th e r th e ir rig h ts to th e ass ist an ce of co m p eten t an d co n scien ti o u s co u n sel i n th eir d ea th-p en alty , p o stconvi ct i on pr ocee di ngs and t o m eani ngf ul acce s s t o the courts ys t em have been vi ol at ed by the s t atut ory s tructur e and the ac t i ons and i nact i ons of M O C PC C . B utthe r emedy they s eek b a se d o n a fav o rab le de term ination o f th is cl aim is th e fil ing o f un o p p o sed ap p li ca ti o n s to f i l e s ucce s s i ve mot i ons f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef . T he pr ocedur es f

orf i l i ng an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a successi ve m oti on for po st -convict i on rel i ef ar e prescr i bed by the U P C C R A . M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 1 ).

### 11

¶ 1 8 . Un d e rSe c t i o n 9 9 - 3 9 - 2 7 , th i s Co u rti s f u l l y c ap a b l e o f

c o n s i d e r i n g th e i n ma t e s ’ c l a i ms in ind ividu al ap p li ca ti o n s to fil e a m o ti o n for p o st- co n v ict ion reli e f. In fac t, this C o u rt al r eady ha s cons i der ed i ndi vi dual appl i cat i ons t o fi l e s ucce s s i ve mot i ons f orpos t - convi ct i on re lie f f ile d b y E a rl W e s le y B e rry a n d D a le L e o B is h o p . B e rr y v. Sta te , 2008- D R - 00717 (o rd e r e n ter e d M a y 5 , 2 0 0 8 ); B ish o p v. Sta te , 2 0 0 8 -D R -11 2 2 (ord er e n tered Ju ly 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). B ec au se th e inm ates’ claim s p lai n ly are co g n izab le un d er the U P C C R A , th e c h an ce ry c o u rt lac k e d su b

jec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n . M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -3 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rt is the onl y s t at e courtw i th j ur i s di ct i on overthes e cl ai m s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 27 ( Supp. 2 0 1 1 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶1 9 . T h e inm ates’ c laim s a re e m b ra ce d b y the U P C C R A ; th ere fore , the c h an ce ry co u rt la c k e d s u b

je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . W e a ff irm . ¶ 2 0 . AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR .