Paul Thompson v. Superintendent Marshall Turner ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2018-CP-00323-COA
PAUL THOMPSON APPELLANT
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MARSHALL TURNER APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/29/2018
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. RICHARD A. SMITH
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PAUL THOMPSON (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LISA L. BLOUNT
DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/14/2020
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND C. WILSON, JJ.
WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Paul Thompson filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The Circuit Court of
Sunflower County dismissed Thompson’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. Thompson
appealed. Thompson had filed the subject motion in the county of incarceration. Because
jurisdiction over post-conviction matters is proper in the county of conviction, the Sunflower
County Circuit Court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Thompson pled guilty to sexual battery in Oktibbeha County Circuit Court on or about
May 5, 2014. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department
of Corrections with five years of post-release supervision. On December 15, 2017,
Thompson filed an action in Sunflower County Circuit Court entitled “Motion for State
Writ.” Thompson claimed he was entitled to have his conviction and sentence vacated due
to newly discovered evidence. The Sunflower County Circuit Court treated the motion as
one for post-conviction relief and dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Aggrieved,
Thompson appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶3. “We review the dismissal or denial of a [post-conviction relief] motion for abuse of
discretion. We will only reverse if the trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous. When
reviewing questions of law, our standard in de novo.” Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836, 838
(¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
DISCUSSION
¶4. A motion for post-conviction relief “must be filed in the trial court where the sentence
was initially imposed.” Smith v. Epps, 210 So. 3d 982, 984 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citing
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7 (Supp. 2014)). This Court has consistently held that “a county
fails to acquire jurisdiction of a petitioner’s claim by virtue of the fact that he was, at the time
of filing, incarcerated in the county.” Id. (internal quotation mark omitted). Our Supreme
Court has provided specific guidance pertaining to cases like the one currently before this
Court:
The Court of Appeals was correct in reversing the circuit court’s ruling that it
did not have proper jurisdiction to hear Graham’s motion for post-conviction
collateral relief. However, it was improper for the Court of Appeals to rule on
the merits of Graham’s motion without the circuit court doing so first, as the
2
circuit court had exclusive, original jurisdiction.
Graham v. State, 85 So. 3d 847, 851 (¶7) (Miss. 2012).
¶5. Thompson pled guilty and was sentenced in the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court.
Thompson is incarcerated in Sunflower County. Upon review, we find no error by the circuit
court in dismissing Thompson’s motion for post-conviction relief for lack of jurisdiction, and
we decline to address the merits.
¶6. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, TINDELL,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.
3