Jeremiah Patton v. State of Mississippi

Jackson, Mississippi criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with filing a motion for post-conviction collateral relief

During the July 1994 term, a Wayne County grand jury returned an indictment

charging Patton with capital murder, with the underlying offense of armed robbery. On May

31, 1995, Patton entered a plea of guilty and was adjudicated guilty of capital murder and

was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of

Corrections. Patton filed his first PCR motion in Wayne County Circuit Court on February

23, 2012. This motion was denied on January 14, 2016, and that denial was not appealed.

Patton filed another PCR motion with the Mississippi Supreme Court on May 19, 2014. This

motion was dismissed without prejudice to his right to seek relief in the trial court on May

28, 2014. In his claim for relief filed on September 29, 2021, Patton alleges that he was

denied due process of law because his capital murder indictment did not allege all the

elements of the underlying felony (armed robbery). As a result, Patton asked that his

conviction and sentence be set aside with prejudice.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶3.

wrote:

¶4.

In McConn v. State, 355 So. 3d 779, 782-83 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court

A circuit court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion "[i]f it plainly appears

from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings

in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.” Miss. Code Ann.

§ 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2020). The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that

summary "dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a

doubt that the [movant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 924 (¶11)

(Miss. 2000) (quotation marks omitted). "Our review of the summary dismissal

of a PCR motion, a question of law, is de novo.” Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d

1239, 1241 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120,

1122 (¶9) (Miss. 1999)).

ANALYSIS

The trial court summarily dismissed Patton's claim for relief pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) for three reasons. First, as a result of the denial of his

February 23, 2012 PCR motion, the trial court found that Patton's claim for relief was barred

2

as a successive motion pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev.

2020). Second, the trial court found that Patton's claim was not filed within three years of

his guilty plea and conviction. Therefore, the instant claim was time-barred pursuant to

Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020). Finally, the trial court held that

because the underlying felony in this capital murder case was armed robbery, it was not

necessary to have set out the elements of armed robbery in the indictment. In Batiste v. State,

121 So. 3d 808, 836 (¶43) (Miss. 2013), the supreme court stated:

In capital-murder cases, unless the underlying felony is burglary, "the

underlying felony that elevates the crime to capital murder must be identified

in the indictment along with the section and subsection of the statute under

which the defendant is being charged.” Goff [v. State], 14 So. 3d [625,] 665

[(¶176) (Miss. 2009) (citing Bennett v. State, 933 So. 2d 930, 952 (Miss.

2006)); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-17-20 (Rev. 2007). No further detail is required.

Goff, 14 So. 3d at 665.

(Footnote omitted). The trial court found that Patton's indictment sufficiently charged him

with capital murder, and based upon the face of Patton's PCR motion, he was not entitled to

any relief