Opinion
No. 2022-CP-00141-COA.
10-10-2022
Amir YOUNG, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
EN BANC OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID NEIL McCARTY, JUDGE FOR THE COURT.
This matter comes before the Court en banc on the State's motion to dismiss Amir Young's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In July 2010, a jury sitting before the Hinds County Circuit Court found Young guilty of armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a felon. Young v. State, 95 So.3d 685, 685 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). Young filed a direct appeal, but this Court upheld the circuit court's judgment. Id. at 688 (¶11). Young subsequently filed three applications for leave to file a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) in the circuit court. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied all three of Young's applications.
On March 3, 2021, Young filed a PCR motion in the circuit court. Because Young did not obtain the Supreme Court's leave to file his PCR motion, the circuit court summarily dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Young filed a timely appeal that the Supreme Court assigned to this Court.
After Young filed his opening brief, the State filed its motion to dismiss Young's appeal. Citing Saunders v. State, 119 So.3d 1051, 1052 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), the State asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Young's appeal because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear Young's PCR motion. However, in Forkner v. State, 227 So.3d 404, 406 (¶6) (Miss. 2017), the Supreme Court explained that this Court has jurisdiction to hear a timely appeal of a circuit court's order dismissing a PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the State's request to dismiss Young's appeal is not well taken.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Young failed to obtain the Supreme Court's leave before filing a PCR motion collaterally challenging his 2010 convictions. See Miss. Code Ann.§ 99-39-7 (Rev. 2020). As a result, the circuit court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Young's PCR motion. Watson v. State, 295 So.3d 542, 544 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). Because a written opinion in this appeal will not "add to the jurisprudence of this state or be useful to the parties or ... the trial court[,]" M.R.A.P. 35-B(d), we find good cause to suspend the need for further briefing. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
THEREFORE, the State's motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hinds County Circuit Court's January 26, 2022 judgment dismissing the appellant's March 3, 2021 motion for post-conviction collateral relief is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Hinds County. SO ORDERED, this the 10 day of October, 2022.
ALL JUDGES AGREE.