Sam Bradford, Sr. v. State of Mississippi

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Sam Bradford, Sr. v. State of Mississippi

223 So. 3d 852, 2017 WL 3263328, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 427

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi

DecidedAugust 1, 2017

DocketNO. 2016-CP-01058-COA

StatusPublished

This text of 223 So. 3d 852 (Sam Bradford, Sr. v. State of Mississippi) 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

Sam Bradford, Sr. v. State of Mississippi, 223 So. 3d 852, 2017 WL 3263328, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

LEE, C.J.,

FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. This appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in dismissing Sam Bradford’s motion for postconviction relief (PCR) for lack of jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Bradford was convicted of murder in 2004 in the Jefferson County Circuit Court and sentenced to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Bradford appealed, and this Court affirmed his conviction. See Bradford v. State, 910 So.2d 1232, 1234 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Bradford subsequently sought permission two separate times from the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to proceed in the trial court as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2015). The supreme court denied both of Bradford’s requests.

¶3. Bradford has since filed other requests for relief in the trial court, which have been denied due to lack of jurisdiction. This Court has affirmed the trial court’s decisions. See Bradford v. State, 158 So.3d 1202, 1204 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015); Bradford v. State, 116 So.3d 164, 165-66 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

¶ 4. In 2016, Bradford filed another motion in the trial court seeking clarification of his sentence. Since Bradford had not *853 sought leave to file the motion, the trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Bradford now appeals, arguing that his sentence was illegal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review. Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. As previously stated, this Court affirmed Bradford’s conviction and sentence in 2005. And pursuant to section 99-39-7, Bradford was required to seek permission from the supreme court before filing his PCR motion in the trial court. Bradford failed to do so; thus, the trial court properly dismissed his PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 7. AFFIRMED.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

LEE, C.J.,

FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. This appeal concerns whether the trial court erred in dismissing Sam Bradford’s motion for postconviction relief (PCR) for lack of jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Bradford was convicted of murder in 2004 in the Jefferson County Circuit Court and sentenced to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Bradford appealed, and this Court affirmed his conviction. See Bradford v. State, 910 So.2d 1232, 1234 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Bradford subsequently sought permission two separate times from the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to proceed in the trial court as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2015). The supreme court denied both of Bradford’s requests.

¶3. Bradford has since filed other requests for relief in the trial court, which have been denied due to lack of jurisdiction. This Court has affirmed the trial court’s decisions. See Bradford v. State, 158 So.3d 1202, 1204 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015); Bradford v. State, 116 So.3d 164, 165-66 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

¶ 4. In 2016, Bradford filed another motion in the trial court seeking clarification of his sentence. Since Bradford had not *853 sought leave to file the motion, the trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Bradford now appeals, arguing that his sentence was illegal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review. Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. As previously stated, this Court affirmed Bradford’s conviction and sentence in 2005. And pursuant to section 99-39-7, Bradford was required to seek permission from the supreme court before filing his PCR motion in the trial court. Bradford failed to do so; thus, the trial court properly dismissed his PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 7. AFFIRMED.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 So. 3d 852, 2017 WL 3263328, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sam-bradford-sr-v-state-of-mississippi-missctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack