JAMES CREEL A/K/A JAMES WALTER CREEL A/K/A J.W. CREEL, APPELLANT
RON KING AND CHRISTOPHER EPPS, APPELLEES
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COVINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/15/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. EDDIE H. BOWEN. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DISMISSED.
JAMES CREEL, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEES: JAMES M. NORRIS, ANTHONY L. SCHMIDT, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ.
¶1. James Walter Creel appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The trial court determined that Creel's petition was a motion for post-conviction
collateral relief (PCCR) and was procedurally barred under Mississippi Code Annotated sections 99-39-5(2) and 99-39-9 (Supp. 2014).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. In 1993, Creel was under an indictment for burglary when he left the custody of the Covington County Sheriff's Office. As a result of his departure, a grand jury indicted Creel for escaping custody pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-9-49(1) (Rev. 2006). On July 18, 1994, Creel was convicted and subsequently sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-83 (Supp. 2014). Creel did not perfect a direct appeal of his conviction.
¶3. On October 13, 1997, Creel filed an untimely motion contending that his counsel failed to perfect his appeal. Creel's motion was denied as being outside the three-year limitations period for filing a PCCR motion.
¶4. From February 1998 to February 2001, Creel filed four additional PCCR motions. The supreme court affirmed the denial of the first motion as time-barred. Subsequently, this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Creel's February 2001 PCCR motion as untimely and successive. Creel v. State, 814 So.2d 176, 177 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).
¶5. In this latest proceeding, Creel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum on July 2, 2012. On March 24, 2013, Creel submitted a motion for leave to correct his sentence and a writ of mandamus on March 27, 2013. The supreme court dismissed the motion for leave and granted mandamus by an order, which required the trial court to address Creel's habeas petition.
¶6. On July 15, 2013, the trial court treated Creel's petition as a PCCR motion and dismissed the ...