Jeremiah Patton v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: November 5, 2024
• Docket: 2023-CP-00618-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CP-00618-COA

JEREMIAH PATTON APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2021 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT THOMAS BAILEY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JEREMIAH PATTON (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/05/2024 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Jeremiah Patton filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) in the

Circuit Court of Wayne County, Mississippi, on September 29, 2021, seeking relief from his

guilty plea to capital murder on May 31, 1995. The trial court summarily dismissed Patton’s

claim for relief on December 3, 2021. Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, Patton appeals.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. During the July 1994 term, a Wayne County grand jury returned an indictment

charging Patton with capital murder, with the underlying offense of armed robbery. On May

31, 1995, Patton entered a plea of guilty and was adjudicated guilty of capital murder and

was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Patton filed his first PCR motion in Wayne County Circuit Court on February

23, 2012. This motion was denied on January 14, 2016, and that denial was not appealed.

Patton filed another PCR motion with the Mississippi Supreme Court on May 19, 2014. This

motion was dismissed without prejudice to his right to seek relief in the trial court on May

28, 2014. In his claim for relief filed on September 29, 2021, Patton alleges that he was

denied due process of law because his capital murder indictment did not allege all the

elements of the underlying felony (armed robbery). As a result, Patton asked that his

conviction and sentence be set aside with prejudice.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶3. In McConn v. State, 355 So. 3d 779, 782-83 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court

wrote:

A circuit court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2020). The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that summary “dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a doubt that the [movant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 924 (¶11) (Miss. 2000) (quotation marks omitted). “Our review of the summary dismissal of a PCR motion, a question of law, is de novo.” Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d 1239, 1241 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120, 1122 (¶9) (Miss. 1999)).

ANALYSIS

¶4. The trial court summarily dismissed Patton’s claim for relief pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) for three reasons. First, as a result of the denial of his

February 23, 2012 PCR motion, the trial court found that Patton’s claim for relief was barred

2 as a successive motion pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev.

2020). Second, the trial court found that Patton’s claim was not filed within three years of

his guilty plea and conviction. Therefore, the instant claim was time-barred pursuant to

Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020). Finally, the trial court held that

because the underlying felony in this capital murder case was armed robbery, it was not

necessary to have set out the elements of armed robbery in the indictment. In Batiste v. State,

121 So. 3d 808, 836 (¶43) (Miss. 2013), the supreme court stated:

In capital-murder cases, unless the underlying felony is burglary, “the underlying felony that elevates the crime to capital murder must be identified in the indictment along with the section and subsection of the statute under which the defendant is being charged.” Goff [v. State], 14 So. 3d [625,] 665 [(¶176) (Miss. 2009) (citing Bennett v. State, 933 So. 2d 930, 952 (Miss. 2006)); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-20 (Rev. 2007). No further detail is required. Goff, 14 So. 3d at 665.

(Footnote omitted). The trial court found that Patton’s indictment sufficiently charged him

with capital murder, and based upon the face of Patton’s PCR motion, he was not entitled to

any relief.

CONCLUSION

¶5. We find that Patton’s PCR motion was barred as a successive motion and as being

untimely filed.1 Patton fails to allege that any exception to these statutory bars is applicable

to his claim. We find there is no exception available to Patton in this case.2 We further find

that Patton is not entitled to any relief based upon the face of his claim. Therefore, we find

1 See Badger v. State, 369 So. 3d 90, 93 (¶¶9-10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023). 2 See Thompson v. State, 386 So. 3d 407, 410 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024).

3 that the trial court did not err by summarily dismissing Patton’s PCR motion pursuant to

section 99-39-11(2).

¶6. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND WEDDLE, JJ., CONCUR. SMITH, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.