Charles Rudd v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CP-00618-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2025-CP-00618-COA

CHARLES RUDD APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/22/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. BRADLEY MILLS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLES RUDD (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/21/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In 2002, Charles Rudd pled guilty in the Madison County Circuit Court to charges of

armed robbery and escape. For armed robbery, the court sentenced Rudd to serve twenty

years in the custody of the Department of Corrections, with ten years suspended and five

years of reporting supervised probation. For escape, the court sentenced Rudd to serve five

years in custody to run consecutively to his armed robbery sentence. Rudd later filed at least

two motions for post-conviction relief (PCR) attacking his conviction, which the circuit court

denied or dismissed. See Rudd v. State, 999 So. 2d 872 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

¶2. In 2018, while on probation, Rudd was arrested and charged with possession of

marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of synthetic cannabinoids with intent to distribute, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The circuit court found that Rudd

had violated the terms of his probation by committing new crimes, revoked his probation, and

ordered him to serve his suspended sentence. Rudd attempted to appeal the order revoking

his probation, but the appeal was dismissed because an order revoking probation is not an

appealable judgment. See Rudd v. State, 303 So. 3d 841 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

¶3. In 2023, Rudd filed a PCR motion attacking the order revoking his probation. The

circuit court denied Rudd’s motion, and Rudd did not appeal. In 2025, Rudd filed another

PCR motion attacking the order revoking his probation. The circuit court denied Rudd’s

motion as without merit and an impermissible successive PCR motion. Rudd appealed.

¶4. We affirm. Under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, any order

dismissing or denying a PCR motion “shall be a bar to a second or successive [PCR]

motion.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2020). “Essentially, [a person] is granted

one bite at the apple when requesting post-conviction relief.” Dobbs v. State, 18 So. 3d 295,

298 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). We acknowledge that the successive-motions bar excepts

“cases in which the petitioner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole

or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).

However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that this exception does not apply when,

as in this case, the motion constitutes a “second post-conviction challenge to the same

revocation decision that [the movant] attacked in his first [PCR] motion.” Fluker v. State,

170 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶10) (Miss. 2015) (emphasis added). Such a motion is “barred as a

successive pleading under Section 99-39-23(6).” Id. Because the present motion is Rudd’s

2 second PCR motion attacking the “same revocation decision,” the circuit court properly

dismissed the motion as an impermissible successive motion.

¶5. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR. EMFINGER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.