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.

Willis v. State

Supreme Court of Mississippi, En Banc

February 13, 2019

DERRICK WILLIS Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

          ORDER

          MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE

         Now before the en banc Court is Derrick Willis's "Application for Leave to Proceed in Trial Court with Post Conviction 99.39.27."

         Willis was convicted of capital murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy; he was sentenced to two life terms and five years, respectively. Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 1019, 1021 (Miss. 2001). This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences, and the mandate issued on October 11, 2001. Id. at 1029. Since then, Willis has filed three applications for leave to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court. Order, Willis v. State, 2003-M-01885 (Miss. Feb. 25, 2004); Order, Willis v. State, 2012-M-01775 (Miss. Feb. 13, 2013); Order, Willis v. State, 2012-M-01775 (Miss. Jan. 14, 2015).

         Willis argues that his due-process and equal-protection rights were violated because no competency hearing was held. He claims the trial court ordered a mental examination, but that it did not occur. He also alleges newly discovered evidence: a single page from a mental-evaluation report that shows the person being evaluated had a full-scale IQ of 70.

         A claim alleging a violation of one's right not to be convicted while incompetent has been recognized as an exception to the successive-writ bars. See Smith v. State, 149 So.3d 1027, 1031-32 (Miss. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Pitchford v. State, 240 So.3d 1061 (Miss. 2017). But to warrant waiving that bar or the time and waiver bars, the claim must have some arguable basis. Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010).

         In addition, the procedural bars do not apply if a petitioner can show that he or she has "evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial, that is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that, if it had been introduced at trial, it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence." Underwood v. State, 37 So.3d 10, 12 (Miss. 2010) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9) (Supp. 2009)).

         After due consideration, we find that Willis's claims lack any arguable basis and do not meet the newly-discovered-evidence standard. Contrary to his assertions, the record shows that the trial court denied his motion for a psychological examination.

         Willis has previously been warned that "future filings . . . which fail to meet an exception to the procedural bars may be deemed frivolous and may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions." Order, Willis v. State, 2012-M-01775 (Miss. Feb. 13, 2013). We again warn him that future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary sanctions, but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See Order, Dunn v. State, 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018).

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application is denied.

         SO ORDERED

          TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., AND ISHEE, J.

          TO DISMISS AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: MAXWELL, BEAM AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.

          TO DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, ...


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.