Serial: 229852 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 2011-M-01006
GLEN L. CONLEY JR. Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent
ORDER
Before the Court is the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this Court to Vacate
an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose, filed by Glen L. Conley
Jr.
Conley was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. Conley
v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 781 (Miss. 2001). This Court affirmed, and the mandate issued on
July 26, 2001. Id. at 808. Since then, he has filed three applications, which were denied.
Order, Conley v. State, No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 29, 2015); Order, Conley v. State,
No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 26, 2012); Order, Conley v. State, No. 2001-M-01902 (Miss.
Aug. 14, 2002).
Here, he asserts three claims: (1) his sentence is illegal; (2) the indictment was
defective; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective. We find the following.
First, an illegal-sentence claim is an exception to the procedural bars. Rowland v.
State, 98 So. 3d 1032, 1035–36 (Miss. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Carson v. State,
212 So. 3d 22 (Miss. 2016). To merit waiving the bars, however, the claim must have some arguable basis. Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). We find Conley’s claim
does not.
Second, a defective-indictment claim does not meet any recognized exception to the
procedural bars. Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1174–75 (Miss. 2015); Smith v. State,
149 So. 3d 1027, 1031 (Miss. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Pitchford v. State,
240 So. 3d 1061 (Miss. 2017); Bell v. State, 123 So. 3d 924, 925 (Miss. 2013); Rowland,
98 So. 3d at 1035–36. See also Bevill v. State, 669 So. 2d 14, 17 (Miss. 1996); Brown v.
State, 187 So. 3d 667, 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). And even if it did, Conley’s claim has no
arguable basis.
Finally, in exceptional circumstances, an ineffective-assistance claim might be
excepted from the procedural bars. Chapman, 167 So. 3d at 1174–75; Bevill, 669 So. 2d at
17; Brown, 187 So. 3d at 671. Yet Conley’s claim lacks any arguable basis to merit waiving
them.
After due consideration, we find the application should be denied. Further, Conley is
hereby warned that any future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary
sanctions but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or
pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514,
at *2 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (warning of sanctions, including in forma pauperis restrictions);
En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514, at *2 (Miss. Apr. 11, 2019) (restricting
in forma pauperis status).
2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this
Court to Vacate an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of February, 2020.
/s/ James D. Maxwell II JAMES D. MAXWELL II, JUSTICE FOR THE COURT
TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., AND COLEMAN, J. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
GLEN L. CONLEY, JR.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
¶1. Although Glen L. Conley’s application for post-conviction relief does not merit relief,
I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
in forma pauperis.
¶2. This Court seems to tire of reading motions that it deems “frivolous” and imposes
monetary sanctions on indigent defendants. The Court then bars those defendants, who in all
likelihood are unable to pay the imposed sanctions, from future filings. In choosing to
prioritize efficiency over justice, this Court forgets the oath that each justice took before
assuming office. That oath stated in relevant part, “I . . . solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich
. . . .” Miss. Const. art. 6, § 155.
¶3. I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings may result in additional
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
4 in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions upon a criminal defendant
proceeding in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude that defendant from his
lawful right to appeal. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sanction as “[a] provision that gives
force to a legal imperative by either rewarding obedience or punishing disobedience.”
Sanction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Instead of punishing
the defendant for filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny or dismiss
motions that lack merit. As Justice Brennan wisely stated,
The Court’s order purports to be motivated by this litigant’s disproportionate consumption of the Court’s time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the amount of time and resources required to deal properly with McDonald’s petitions could be so great as to justify the step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr. McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to process his petitions for the next several years at least. I continue to find puzzling the Court’s fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186–87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1989)
(Brennan, J., dissenting).
¶4. The same logic applies to the restriction on filing subsequent applications for post-
conviction relief. To cut off an indigent defendant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis is to
cut off his access to the courts. This, in itself, violates a defendant’s constitutional rights, for
Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Serial: 229852 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
No. 2011-M-01006
GLEN L. CONLEY JR. Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent
ORDER
Before the Court is the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this Court to Vacate
an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose, filed by Glen L. Conley
Jr.
Conley was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. Conley
v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 781 (Miss. 2001). This Court affirmed, and the mandate issued on
July 26, 2001. Id. at 808. Since then, he has filed three applications, which were denied.
Order, Conley v. State, No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 29, 2015); Order, Conley v. State,
No. 2011-M-01006 (Miss. Jan. 26, 2012); Order, Conley v. State, No. 2001-M-01902 (Miss.
Aug. 14, 2002).
Here, he asserts three claims: (1) his sentence is illegal; (2) the indictment was
defective; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective. We find the following.
First, an illegal-sentence claim is an exception to the procedural bars. Rowland v.
State, 98 So. 3d 1032, 1035–36 (Miss. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Carson v. State,
212 So. 3d 22 (Miss. 2016). To merit waiving the bars, however, the claim must have some arguable basis. Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). We find Conley’s claim
does not.
Second, a defective-indictment claim does not meet any recognized exception to the
procedural bars. Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170, 1174–75 (Miss. 2015); Smith v. State,
149 So. 3d 1027, 1031 (Miss. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Pitchford v. State,
240 So. 3d 1061 (Miss. 2017); Bell v. State, 123 So. 3d 924, 925 (Miss. 2013); Rowland,
98 So. 3d at 1035–36. See also Bevill v. State, 669 So. 2d 14, 17 (Miss. 1996); Brown v.
State, 187 So. 3d 667, 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). And even if it did, Conley’s claim has no
arguable basis.
Finally, in exceptional circumstances, an ineffective-assistance claim might be
excepted from the procedural bars. Chapman, 167 So. 3d at 1174–75; Bevill, 669 So. 2d at
17; Brown, 187 So. 3d at 671. Yet Conley’s claim lacks any arguable basis to merit waiving
them.
After due consideration, we find the application should be denied. Further, Conley is
hereby warned that any future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary
sanctions but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or
pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514,
at *2 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018) (warning of sanctions, including in forma pauperis restrictions);
En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514, at *2 (Miss. Apr. 11, 2019) (restricting
in forma pauperis status).
2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Application for Post-Conviction Relief for this
Court to Vacate an Illegal Sentence the Circuit Court had No Authority to Impose is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of February, 2020.
/s/ James D. Maxwell II JAMES D. MAXWELL II, JUSTICE FOR THE COURT
TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., AND COLEMAN, J. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
GLEN L. CONLEY, JR.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:
¶1. Although Glen L. Conley’s application for post-conviction relief does not merit relief,
I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
in forma pauperis.
¶2. This Court seems to tire of reading motions that it deems “frivolous” and imposes
monetary sanctions on indigent defendants. The Court then bars those defendants, who in all
likelihood are unable to pay the imposed sanctions, from future filings. In choosing to
prioritize efficiency over justice, this Court forgets the oath that each justice took before
assuming office. That oath stated in relevant part, “I . . . solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich
. . . .” Miss. Const. art. 6, § 155.
¶3. I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings may result in additional
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
4 in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions upon a criminal defendant
proceeding in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude that defendant from his
lawful right to appeal. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sanction as “[a] provision that gives
force to a legal imperative by either rewarding obedience or punishing disobedience.”
Sanction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Instead of punishing
the defendant for filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny or dismiss
motions that lack merit. As Justice Brennan wisely stated,
The Court’s order purports to be motivated by this litigant’s disproportionate consumption of the Court’s time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the amount of time and resources required to deal properly with McDonald’s petitions could be so great as to justify the step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr. McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to process his petitions for the next several years at least. I continue to find puzzling the Court’s fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.
In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186–87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1989)
(Brennan, J., dissenting).
¶4. The same logic applies to the restriction on filing subsequent applications for post-
conviction relief. To cut off an indigent defendant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis is to
cut off his access to the courts. This, in itself, violates a defendant’s constitutional rights, for
Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of
5 the recognition of these and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became a fundamental right.
Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You’re Out of
Court-It May Be Effective, but Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474–75 (1997).
This Court must not discourage convicted defendants from exercising their right to appeal.
Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1986). Novel arguments that might remove
a criminal defendant from confinement should not be discouraged by the threat of monetary
sanctions and restrictions on filings. Id. As United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
Marshall stated,
In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having ‘abused the system,’ . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here.
In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 19, 111 S. Ct. 1569, 1571, 114 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1991) (Marshall, J.,
dissenting).
¶5. Instead of simply denying or dismissing those motions that lack merit, the Court seeks
to punish the defendant for the frequency of his motion filing. However, an individual who,
even incorrectly, believes that she has been deprived of her freedom should not be expected
to sit silently by and wait to be forgotten. “Historically, the convictions with the best chances
of being overturned were those that got repeatedly reviewed on appeal or those chosen by
6 legal institutions such as the Innocence Project and the Center on Wrongful Convictions.”
Emily Barone, The Wrongly Convicted: Why More Falsely Accused People are Being
Exonerated Today Than Ever Before, Time, http://time.com/wrongly-convicted/ (last visited
Oct. 31, 2019) (emphasis added). The Washington Post reports that
the average time served for the 1,625 exonerated individuals in the registry is more than nine years. Last year, three innocent murder defendants in Cleveland were exonerated 39 years after they were convicted—they spent their entire adult lives in prison—and even they were lucky: We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared.
Samuel R. Gross, Opinion, The Staggering Number of Wrongful Convictions in America,
Washington Post (July 24, 2015), http://wapo.st/1SGHcyd?tid=ss_mail&ut
m_term=.4bed8ad6f2cc.
¶6. Rather than imposing sanctions and threatening to restrict access to the courts, I would
simply dismiss or deny motions that lack merit. Therefore, although I find no merit in
Conley’s application for post-conviction relief, I disagree with this Court’s warning of future
sanctions and restrictions.
KITCHENS, P.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT.