MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE
before the en banc Court is Derrick Willis's
"Application for Leave to Proceed in Trial Court with
Post Conviction 99.39.27."
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).
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.
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).
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)).
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
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).
THEREFORE ORDERED that the application is denied.
DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., AND ISHEE,
DISMISS AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: MAXWELL, BEAM AND
DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, ...