Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. State

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 27, 2018

DAVID JACKSON A/K/A DAVID DONNELL JACKSON Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

          EN BANC ORDER

          WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE

         Now 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.

         We find 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.

         We find 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)).

         Jackson 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.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court is hereby dismissed.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Proceed as a Sanctioned Litigant is hereby dismissed as moot.

         SO ORDERED.

          AGREE: WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, AND ISHEE, JJ.

          KING, J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.

          KING, JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

         ¶1. 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 pauperis.[1]

         ¶2. 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 is frivolous.

         ¶3. 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.