EN BANC ORDER
WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE
before the Court, en banc, comes the Application for Leave to
Proceed in the Trial Court filed pro se by David Jackson.
Jackson's conviction of possession of cocaine with the
intent to distribute and sentence of thirty years as a
habitual offender were affirmed on direct appeal, and the
mandate issued on March 20, 2001. Jackson v. State,
778 So.2d 786 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Since that time, Jackson
has filed fourteen motions for post-conviction relief, and he
has received two monetary sanctions, now totaling $300, for
his frivolous motions. Those sanctions are still outstanding.
the instant application for leave is barred by time and as a
successive application, and it does not meet any of the
exception to the bars. Miss. Code Ann. §§
99-39-5(2), 99-39-27(9) (Rev. 2015). Notwithstanding the
bars, the claims raised in the application are without merit.
Accordingly, the application for leave should be dismissed.
the instant filing is also frivolous. Jackson is hereby
warned that future filings deemed frivolous may result not
only in additional monetary sanctions, but also restrictions
on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief
(or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See
En Banc Order, Fairley v. State, 2014-M-01185 (Miss.
May 3, 2018) (citing Order, Bownes v. State,
2014-M-00478 (Miss. Sept. 20, 2017)).
has also filed a motion seeking to proceed in this matter
despite his outstanding sanctions. In light of this order and
the warning regarding future frivolous filings given herein,
the Court finds the motion to proceed despite sanctions
should be dismissed as moot.
THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for Leave to Proceed
in the Trial Court is hereby dismissed.
FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Proceed as a Sanctioned
Litigant is hereby dismissed as moot.
WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM,
CHAMBERLIN, AND ISHEE, JJ.
J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN
Although I find no merit in Jackson's application for
post-conviction relief, I disagree with the Court's
finding that the application is frivolous and with the
warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in
monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for
post-conviction collateral relief in forma
This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean
one filed in which the movant has "no hope of
success." Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 751
(Miss. 1995). However, "though a case may be weak or
'light-headed,' that is not sufficient to label it
frivolous." Calhoun v. State, 849 So.2d 892,
897 (Miss. 2003). Jackson made reasonable arguments in his
motion for post-conviction relief. As such, I disagree with
the Court's determination that Jackson's application
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