Opinion ID: 2533844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Fulgham's claim is procedurally barred.

Text: ¶ 5. Under Mississippi's Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief (PCR) Act, Fulgham has the right to file a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which she was convicted and sentenced. [2] However, the PCR Act also provides that: Failure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors either in fact or law which are capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal, regardless of whether such are based on the laws and the Constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver. [3] ¶ 6. Our caselaw clearly establishes that this procedural bar cannot be applied in the face of errors affecting fundamental rights, because such a violation is too significant a deprivation of liberty to be subjected to a procedural bar. [4] And a conviction under an unconstitutionally vague statute violates the Due Process Clause, [5] which we find to be an error affecting a fundamental constitutional right. If the phrase unauthorized electronic device is vague under the Due Process Clause, then the State had no power to bring an indictment charging a violation of Mississippi Code Section 47-5-193. This Court has ruled that `[w]here the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty.' [6] Therefore, we except Fulgham's claim from the procedural bar.