Opinion ID: 1872110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Constitutionality of Post-Conviction Relief Act

Text: Patterson, citing Reynolds v. State, 521 So.2d 914 (Miss. 1988), asserts, for the first time, [t]he Post Conviction Relief Act is unconstitutional and unenforceable because it constitutes a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in violation o[f] Miss. Const. Art. 3, § 21 (1890), ther[e]by depriving defendant of due process and equal protection of the law. Neither this claim nor argument in support thereof was made in the lower court. Patterson's Motion To Vacate Guilty Plea is devoid of any rhetoric aimed at the constitutionality of the post-conviction relief act or at the constitutional vitality of the time bar(s) found within its four corners. Patterson obviously contemplated the State would assert the time bar as a defense since the brief filed in support of his motion to vacate guilty plea claims ... that this procedural bar cannot apply in this cause where an individual's fundamental constitutional rights are violated as in this case. It is clear that Patterson's constitutional claims, which appear only on the pages of the briefs filed in this Court, have been raised for the very first time here. We have repeatedly held, however, that [o]nly matters of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1111, 1114 (Miss. 1983) citing Williamson v. State, 330 So.2d 272 (Miss. 1976). See also Jefferson v. State, 386 So.2d 200, 202 (Miss. 1980) [It is elemental that errors cannot be raised in this Court for the first time on appeal.]; Ponder v. State, 335 So.2d 885, 886 (Miss. 1976) [A trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for decision.] These rules apply to our review of appeals involving collateral attacks originating in the lower court as well as our review of convictions flowing in the wake of direct appeal. In Leverett v. State, 197 So.2d 889, 890 (Miss. 1967), this Court, quoting from Collins v. State, 173 Miss. 179, 180, 159 So. 865 (1935) held: The Supreme Court is a court of appeals, it has no original jurisdiction; it can only try questions that have been tried and passed upon by the court from which the appeal is taken. Whatever remedy appellant has is in the trial court, not in this court. This court can only pass on the question after the trial court has done so. 197 So.2d at 890. The rule that questions not raised in the lower court will not be reviewed on appeal is particularly true where constitutional questions are involved. Stewart v. City of Pascagoula, 206 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1968). These questions are waived  forfeited, if you please  if not asserted at the trial level. Contreras v. State, 445 So.2d 543, 544 (Miss. 1984) [Appellant did not raise in lower court the constitutionality of statute proscribing crime against nature, and for that reason the question could not be considered on appeal]; Colburn v. State, supra, 431 So.2d 1111, 1113 (Miss. 1983) [Constitutionality of aggravated assault statute could not be considered for the first time on appeal]; Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406, 407 (Miss. 1983) [Constitutional argument not asserted in court below was waived and could not be asserted in Supreme Court]. Patterson, by failing to attack the constitutionality of the post-conviction relief act in the lower court, waived any error in this regard and cannot now seek reversal of the trial court's ruling in this Court. DENIAL OF MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA, AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.