Jackie Dale Franklin v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CP-00696-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-CP-00696-COA

JACKIE DALE FRANKLIN APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/29/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. BRADLEY MILLS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JACKIE DALE FRANKLIN (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/09/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A man pled guilty to armed robbery. Eleven years later, he filed a motion for post-

conviction relief. The trial court dismissed his motion, finding the request time-barred.

Finding no error, we affirm.

¶2. In 2012, a Madison County grand jury indicted Jackie Dale Franklin on one count of

armed robbery with a deadly weapon. In 2013, Franklin pled guilty to armed robbery and

was sentenced to forty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

The circuit court added a ten-year sentence to be served consecutively since a deadly weapon

was used. He was ordered to serve ten years in prison followed by at least five years of

post-release supervision. ¶3. In January 2014, Franklin filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief with the

Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court “dismissed without prejudice” his PCR after

determining Franklin “ha[d] not appealed” his conviction or sentence to the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, Franklin did not re-file.

¶4. It was not until a decade later, in March 2024, when Franklin filed a second PCR

motion. Although it was filed in the correct court, the trial court found it was time-barred

and dismissed Franklin’s motion. Franklin appealed.

¶5. “When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR petition, we will only

disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review the

trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Cuevas v. State, 304 So.

3d 1163, 1167 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

¶6. Post-conviction relief claims must be made “within three (3) years after entry of the

judgment of conviction.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020). A PCR claim is

time-barred if the motion is filed beyond the three-year time period unless the claim fits

within one of the express statutory exceptions. Howell v. State, 358 So. 3d 613, 615-16 (¶¶8,

12) (Miss. 2023). To overcome the time-bar, the movant must prove there is an applicable

statutory exception. Simoneaux v. State, 359 So. 3d 665, 667 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023).

¶7. Here, Franklin pled guilty and was sentenced by the trial court in 2013. The statute

of limitations for Franklin’s claim for post-conviction relief expired in 2016. Because

Franklin filed the present motion in 2024, well beyond the statutory period, it was time-

2 barred. Franklin fails to assert—much less prove—any statutory exception applies. Franklin

alleges his PCR motion is not time-barred, claiming a violation of fundamental rights.

“However, in Howell the Supreme Court expressly abolished the ‘fundamental-rights

exception’ to the statute of limitations.” Ward v. State, 394 So. 3d 1031, 1034 (¶10) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2024). Therefore, Franklin’s “fundamental-rights exception” argument is without

merit. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in dismissing Franklin’s PCR motion as time-

barred.

¶8. AFFIRMED.

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