Murphy v. Epps


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2007-CP-02089-COA
Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-02089-SCT ; 2007-CP-02089-COA ; 2007-CT-02089-SCT ; 2007-CT-02089-SCT

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 12-09-2008
Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J.
Holding: Dismissed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Credit for time served - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) & (g)
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Banes, Ishee, Roberts, and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 10-10-2007
Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Prentiss Harrell
Disposition: DENIED MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING COMPUTATION OF APPELLANT’S PRISON SENTENCE
Case Number: 2007-0489

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: BRENT EDISON MURPHY




BRENT EDISON MURPHY (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, RONALD KING A/K/A RON KING AND ALICIA BOX OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JANE L. MAPP  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Credit for time served - Timeliness of appeal - M.R.A.P. 4(a) & (g)

Summary of the Facts: Brent Murphy filed a petition for a motion to show cause against officials of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, claiming that he was not given full credit for time served in Louisiana while charges against him for robbery in Mississippi were pending. The trial court, treating his motion as one for post-conviction relief, denied the motion. Murphy appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: M.R.A.P. 4(a) sets forth time limits for filing an appeal. If the notice of appeal is not timely filed, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction. The trial court denied Murphy’s motion to show cause on October 12, 2007. Murphy’s notice of appeal was signed by him on November 21, 2007, and filed with the circuit court on November 28, 2007, both of which are clearly outside the thirty days allotted in Rule 4(a). Murphy did not move for an extension of time in the trial court during or after the thirty days provided to him in M.R.A.P. 4(g). Moreover, the record contains no evidence of a good cause or excusable neglect which could support an extension of the thirty day time limitation. Therefore, Murphy’s appeal is dismissed as untimely.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court