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.
§

Brown v. State

71 So. 3d 1267 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Brown v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. State

    90 So. 3d 645 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    In Brown v. State, 90 So.3d 645 (Miss.Ct.App.2012), this Court discussed the 2009 amendment as it applied to a petitioner who was in custody out of state, and who had served and been released from his sentence in Mississippi.

    We affirmed, finding that Brown's PCR motion was time-barred. See Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1269 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). Brown now attacks the same circuit court judgment asserting that his allegedly involuntary guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel have resulted in a more strenuous sentence in federal court. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the circuit court's judgment.

  2. Brown v. State

    83 So. 3d 459 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    The second case involves the very same defendant as the current case, but Brown then was attacking a 1986 arson conviction through a 2010 PCR motion. In Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1269(¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Smith v. State, 914 So.2d 1248, 1250 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2005)), we stated: “Post-conviction relief applies only to a prisoner who is in the custody of the State, serving a sentence imposed by a Mississippi court.” This Court ultimately affirmed the circuit court's denial of Brown's PCR motion on the ground that Brown was “not currently in the custody of the MDOC and [was] also procedurally time-barred from filing a PCR motion.” Id. at (¶ 8).

  3. Guyse v. State

    282 So. 3d 1287 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    2018). We apply a de novo review to any questions of law. Brown v. State , 71 So. 3d 1267, 1268 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).ANALYSIS

  4. Presley v. State

    176 So. 3d 158 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    “We will not disturb a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion unless the decision is found to be clearly erroneous.” See Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1268 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). Questions of law are reviewed de novo.

  5. Wheater v. State

    159 So. 3d 615 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 8) (Miss.2008). We review questions of law de novo. Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1268 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). ¶ 11. Wheater first argues that the circuit court was without authority to revoke his PRS on the basis of his failure to make restitutions payments.

  6. Smith v. State

    123 So. 3d 480 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)

    Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 8) (Miss.2008). We review questions of law de novo. Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1268 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011).¶ 9.

  7. Pollard v. State

    122 So. 3d 1242 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)

    ¶ 5. “We will not disturb a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion unless the decision is found to be clearly erroneous.” Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1268 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citation omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Id.

  8. Wheater v. State

    NO. 2013-CP-01810-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Sep. 20, 2013)

    2008). We review questions of law de novo. Brown v. State, 71 So. 3d 1267, 1268 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). ¶11. Wheater first argues that the circuit court was without authority to revoke his PRS on the basis of his failure to make restitutions payments.

  9. Smith. v. State

    NO. 2012-CA-00024-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jun. 4, 2013)

    2008). We review questions of law de novo. Brown v. State, 71 So. 3d 1267, 1268 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). ¶9.

  10. Fair v. State

    102 So. 3d 1165 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 12 times

    ¶ 5. “We will not disturb a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion unless the decision is found to be clearly erroneous.” Brown v. State, 71 So.3d 1267, 1268 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (citing Edmondson v. State, 17 So.3d 591, 594 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2009)). We utilize a de novo standard of review when considering questions of law.