Opinion ID: 1788352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: pro se motion

Text: Eleven months after Rankin's brief was filed with this Court, he requested from the Clerk of this Court the trial transcript in this cause in order to prepare a supplemental appeal brief. Two months later, Rankin filed documents captioned motion for leave to proceed in trial court, motion for post-conviction collateral relief, petition for post-conviction collateral relief, and memorandum brief in support of his post-conviction petition. Rankin's motion for leave to proceed in trial court was purportedly filed pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27. His petition for post-conviction collateral relief asserts ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically counsel's failure to advocate Rankin's Fourth Amendment claim of illegal search and seizure and counsel's failure to file a timely suppression motion regarding the illegally obtained evidence. Rankin concluded his petition with a request that this Court set aside his conviction and sentence with a complete discharge. Rankin's memorandum brief explains that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is directed to his attorney's performance both at trial and on appeal.
Rankin's pro se motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) was prematurely filed with this Court as his direct appeal had not yet been disposed of by this Court. Martin v. State, 556 So.2d 357, 359 (Miss. 1990); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7 (Supp. 1992). This Court could dismiss or deny Rankin's motion on this ground without prejudice, allowing him to institute another such action in the appropriate court at the appropriate time. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9) (Supp. 1992). See also Martin, 556 So.2d at 360. Another option is for this Court to first dispose of Rankin's direct appeal, then address his PCR action. But Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 1992) requires that a motion for PCR be made within three (3) years after the time in which the prisoner's direct appeal is ruled upon by the supreme court of Mississippi. (Emphasis added) This brings us back to dismissal of Rankin's PCR action without prejudice, because prematurely filed. In light of Rankin's letter to the Clerk of this Court, requesting his trial transcript in order to prepare a supplemental appeal brief, and in the interest of judicial economy, this Court considers Rankin's PCR action as a supplement to his brief on direct appeal. All information necessary to dispose of his claim as a direct appeal is available to this Court at this time; therefore, the issue presented in Rankin's pro se filings will be addressed by this Court. That issue is: A. Whether Rankin's counsel was ineffective at trial and on direct appeal because: 1. Counsel failed to advocate Rankin's Fourth Amendment claim of illegal search and seizure; and 2. Counsel failed to file a timely suppression motion regarding the illegally obtained evidence.