Henry v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-01435-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-01435-COA ; 2007-CT-01435-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-22-2008 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Timeliness of motion - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - M.R.C.P. 59 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-05-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Roger T. Clark Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: A2401-2006-00309 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JOSEPH HENRY |
JOSEPH HENRY (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS | ||
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: | Post-conviction relief - Timeliness of motion - M.R.C.P. 60(b) - M.R.C.P. 59 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joseph Henry pled guilty to the sale of cocaine and was sentenced to ten years as a habitual offender. Henry filed motions for post-conviction relief which were denied. Henry appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Henry’s first motion for post-conviction relief was filed on August 24, 2006. The court denied the requested relief on September 27, 2006. The record does not reveal any further action taken by Henry to challenge the court’s decision until July 2, 2007, when Henry filed a “Motion for Relief” under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the motion should have been filed according to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the federal rules. Under M.R.C.P. 60(b), a motion for relief must be filed within either six months or within a reasonable amount of time, depending on the reason alleged in the motion. However under M.R.C.P. 59, Henry’s motion should have been filed within ten days of the court’s judgment issued on September 27, 2006, in order to be timely. Instead, Henry’s motion was filed on July 2, 2007, nearly ten months after the court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The motion would also have been untimely under Rule 60(b) because it was not filed within six months. Because Henry was requesting a reduction in his sentence, he was effectively requesting that the court alter or amend its judgment. Barring some special exception, the court could not have granted the relief requested by Henry, as the term of court in which Henry was sentenced had ended without any pending motion for a reduction in Henry’s sentence. Thus, the court properly denied Henry’s petition for post-conviction relief. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
