Opinion ID: 1846759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court erred in denying appellant's post conviction relief motion as being time barred.

Text: ¶ 8. The Appellant's first argument asserts that the trial court was in error when it held that Ivy's motion for post conviction relief was time barred. ¶ 9. Mississippi Code Annotated § 99-39-5(2) (1994) of the Mississippi Post Conviction Relief Act, states in relevant part that, [a] motion for relief under this chapter shall be made...in case of a guilty plea, within three (3) years after entry of the judgment of conviction. ¶ 10. In Campbell v. State, 611 So.2d 209, 210 (Miss.1992), a case factually similar to the one sub judice, we held that: Because he [Campbell] filed his petition outside the statutory three-year time period and did not present either an intervening case or new evidence as an exception to the time limitation, we find that the petition was time-barred. ¶ 11. Ivy entered his guilty plea on August 23, 1978. The Mississippi Post Conviction Relief Act was not in effect at the time the Appellant pled guilty, but he had three (3) years from the date of enactment to file a petition for post conviction relief. As this Court noted in Campbell, supra, the Post Conviction Relief Act became effective on April 17, 1984. Campbell, 611 So.2d at 210. Consequently, Ivy's deadline for timely filing his petition was April 17, 1987. ¶ 12. The Appellant, however, did not file his petition for relief until October 13, 1997, some ten (10) years after the deadline. Normally, the judge below would have been correct in finding that Ivy's claim was time barred. ¶ 13. However, in Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428, 430 (Miss.1991), we held that errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to a legal sentence, may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prevent their consideration. See also Smith v. State, 477 So.2d 191, 195-96 (Miss.1985). ¶ 14. As a result, the trial court incorrectly barred Ivy's petition for violation of the three (3) year statute of limitations in Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2). Ivy's petition alleged that he was serving time under an illegal sentence and was therefore not subject to the time bar. Thus, the trial court below was in error when it dismissed Ivy's petition for post conviction relief.