Amerson v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Amerson v. State

34 So. 3d 636, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 4593704

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

DecidedDecember 8, 2009

Docket2009-CP-00630-COA

StatusPublished

This text of 34 So. 3d 636 (Amerson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amerson v. State, 34 So. 3d 636, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 4593704 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

IRVING, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Thomas J. Amerson was convicted of arson and, in a separate cause number, of destroying public property and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced in the aggregate to ten years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. At the time of his convictions, Amerson was also serving a five-year sentence for carrying a concealed weapon. Amerson appealed the arson conviction, which was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Amerson v. State, 628 So.2d 1383 (Miss.1993). Thereafter, Amerson unsuccessfully sought permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to pursue post-conviction relief (PCR) in the circuit court. Notwithstanding his failure to obtain permission, Amerson filed a PCR motion in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, challenging his sentence for the arson conviction.

¶ 2. The circuit court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Amerson’s PCR motion pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev.2007) because he had failed to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court.

¶ 3. A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222(¶ 8) (Miss.2008) (quoting Lambert v. State, 941 So.2d 804, 807(¶ 14) (Miss.2006)). In addition, “questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id. (quoting Lambert, 941 So.2d at 807(¶ 14)).

¶ 4. In this case, the circuit court was correct that it did not have jurisdiction to *637 consider Amerson’s PCR motion. Section 99-39-7 states that there must be “an order granted allowing the filing of such motion in the trial court.” Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LAUD-ERDALE COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IRVING, J.,

for the Court.

¶ 1. Thomas J. Amerson was convicted of arson and, in a separate cause number, of destroying public property and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced in the aggregate to ten years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. At the time of his convictions, Amerson was also serving a five-year sentence for carrying a concealed weapon. Amerson appealed the arson conviction, which was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Amerson v. State, 628 So.2d 1383 (Miss.1993). Thereafter, Amerson unsuccessfully sought permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to pursue post-conviction relief (PCR) in the circuit court. Notwithstanding his failure to obtain permission, Amerson filed a PCR motion in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court, challenging his sentence for the arson conviction.

¶ 2. The circuit court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Amerson’s PCR motion pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev.2007) because he had failed to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court.

¶ 3. A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222(¶ 8) (Miss.2008) (quoting Lambert v. State, 941 So.2d 804, 807(¶ 14) (Miss.2006)). In addition, “questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id. (quoting Lambert, 941 So.2d at 807(¶ 14)).

¶ 4. In this case, the circuit court was correct that it did not have jurisdiction to *637 consider Amerson’s PCR motion. Section 99-39-7 states that there must be “an order granted allowing the filing of such motion in the trial court.” Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LAUD-ERDALE COUNTY.

KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 So. 3d 636, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 867, 2009 WL 4593704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerson-v-state-missctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack