Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Brandon v. State

108 So. 3d 999 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brandon v. State

22 Citing cases

  1. State v. Childs

    309 So. 3d 1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    M.R.C.P. 15(a). "But the PCR statutes do not provide an unfettered right to present claims not alleged in the PCR motion." Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1007 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA),

  2. Norris v. State

    162 So. 3d 833 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–9 (Supp.2013).Brandon v. State, 108 So.3d 999, 1007 (¶ 25) (Miss.Ct.App.2013).¶ 2.

  3. Bates v. State

    126 So. 3d 990 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    ¶ 7. “Under [Mississippi Code Annotated] section 99–39–5(2) [ (Supp.2013) ], a movant has three years to file a PCR motion, and failure to file a PCR motion within the three years is a procedural bar.” Brandon v. State, 108 So.3d 999, 1004 (¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2013). Bates filed a PCR motion on July 13, 2012, challenging his 2002 guilty pleas for automobile burglary.

  4. Norris v. State

    NO. 2013-CA-00661-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2013)

    2013). Brandon v. State, 108 So. 3d 999, 1007 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Background

  5. Lambert v. State

    329 So. 3d 1225 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    And the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies is on the movant. Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). In this instance, Lambert has failed to show that any exception to the three-year statute of limitations applies.

  6. Creppel v. State

    305 So. 3d 1245 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    Therefore, a PCR motion filed outside the three-year period is procedurally barred. Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). There are exceptions to this statute of limitations, and the burden falls on the movant to prove that at least one of the exceptions is applicable.

  7. Wheeler v. State

    306 So. 3d 751 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    The burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies is on the movant. Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). ¶25.

  8. Lawrence v. State

    293 So. 3d 848 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    The burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies is on the movant. Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). ¶9.

  9. Hays v. State

    282 So. 3d 714 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Further, "the movant[ ] bears the burden of proving an exception applies to the UPCCRA's procedural bars." Gunn , 248 So. 3d at 942 (¶19) (citing Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3, 1006 (¶¶12, 23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)).

  10. Morales v. State

    291 So. 3d 363 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that ineffective assistance of counsel can constitute an exception to the UPCCRA's procedural bars, but only in "extraordinary circumstances"

    Gunn v. State , 248 So. 3d 937, 942 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Brandon v. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3, 1006 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) ).