Opinion
No. 2014-M-00033
04-03-2019
JOSEPH STEVENSON Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent
Serial: 224411 EN BANC ORDER
Now before the Court, en banc, comes the application for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief filed pro se by Joseph Stevenson. Stevenson's conviction of statutory rape and sentence of life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections was affirmed on direct appeal. Stevenson v. State , 13 So. 3d 314 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). This Court denied Stevenson's petition for writ of certiorari, and the mandate issued on August 20, 2009. Stevenson v. State , 14 So. 3d 731 (Miss. 2009).
This is Stevenson's third application for leave to pursue post-conviction relief in the trial court. The first was dismissed as time-barred on June 2, 2015. The second was dismissed as time-barred and successive, without exception, on June 15, 2017. Likewise, the instant application for leave is time-barred and successive, and it is not within any of the statutory exceptions. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(2), 99-39-27(9) (Rev. 2015). Notwithstanding these bars, Stevenson's claims are without merit. Accordingly, the Court finds that the application for leave should be dismissed.
The Court also finds that this filing is frivolous. Stevenson is hereby warned that future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in monetary sanctions, but also in restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. Order, Dunn v. State , 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby dismissed as time-barred and as a successive application.
SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of April, 2019.
/s/ Dawn H. Beam
DAWN H. BEAM, JUSTICE
FOR THE COURT TO DISMISS AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, AND ISHEE, JJ. TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DISMISS: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J.
JOSEPH STEVENSON
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT: ¶1. Although Joseph Stevenson's application for post-conviction relief does not merit relief, I disagree with the Court's finding that the application is frivolous and with the warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis. ¶2. This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean one filed in which the movant has "no hope of success." Roland v. State , 666 So. 2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995). However, "though a case may be weak or 'light-headed,' that is not sufficient to label it frivolous." Calhoun v. State , 849 So. 2d 892, 897 (Miss. 2003). In his application for post-conviction relief, Stevenson made a reasonable argument that his sentence was illegal. As such, I disagree with the Court's determination that Stevenson's application is frivolous. ¶3. Additionally, I disagree with this Court's warning that future filings may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions upon a criminal defendant proceeding in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude that defendant from his lawful right to appeal. Black's Law Dictionary defines sanction as "[a] provision that gives force to a legal imperative by either rewarding obedience or punishing disobedience." Sanction, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Instead of punishing the defendant for filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny or dismiss motions that lack merit. As Justice Brennan wisely stated,
The Court's order purports to be motivated by this litigant's disproportionate consumption of the Court's time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the amount of time and resources required to deal properly with McDonald's petitions could be so great as to justify the step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr. McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to process his petitions for the next several years at least. I continue to find puzzling the Court's fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.In re McDonald , 489 U.S. 180, 186-87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting). ¶4. The same logic applies to the restriction on filing subsequent applications for post-conviction relief. To cut off an indigent defendant's right to proceed in forma pauperis is to cut off his access to the courts. This, in itself, violates a defendant's constitutional rights, for
Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the recognition of these and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became a fundamental right.Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You're Out of Court-It May Be Effective, but Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474-75 (1997). This Court must not discourage convicted defendants from exercising their right to appeal. Wisconsin v. Glick , 782 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1986). Novel arguments that might remove a criminal defendant from confinement should not be discouraged by the threat of monetary sanctions and restrictions on filings. Id. ¶5. Therefore, although I find no merit in Stevenson's application for post-conviction relief and agree it should be dismissed, I disagree with this Court's contention that the application merits the classification of frivolous and with its warning of future sanctions and restrictions.
See Order, Dunn v. State , 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018).
See also In re Demos , 500 U.S. 16, 19, 111 S. Ct. 1569, 1571, 114 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having 'abused the system,' . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society's less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here."). --------
KITCHENS, P.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT.