67 So. 3d 725 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “there has been no direct appeal of his conviction or sentence, [the petitioner] must file his PCR motions in the trial court.” See Jackson v. State, 67 So.3d 725, 730 (¶ 18) (Miss.2011); see also Payton v. State, 89 So.3d 73, 75-76 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). The supreme court explained that”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 So. 3d 73 - Payton v. State · 199 So. 3d 715 - Vincent N. Creppel v. State of Mississippi

2. “Because there has been no direct appeal of his conviction or sentence, Jackson must file his PCR motions in the trial court. Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-7 (Rev. 2007). See Martin v. State, 556 So.2d 357, 359 (Miss.1990) (citing McDonall v. State, 465 So.2d 1077 (Miss.1985)) (“In cases where the prisoner has entered a plea of guilty, the trial court has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition for post-conviction relief.”). Jackson’s original, 1986 “motion to vacate” and his PCR filings in 1993 and 2007 were properly filed PCR motions. But Jackson incorrectly filed in this Court three applications for leave to proceed in the trial court (i.e., to get permission to file new PCR motions in the trial court), in 1999, 2002, and 2004. This Court denied all three applications, finding them to be impermissible successive writs under Section 99-39-27(9). When we characterized our disposition of Jackson’s 1999 application as a denial, we were stating that the merits of the PCR motion had been reviewed and rejected or that his arguments were barred on res judicata or waiver grounds. See Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-27(9) (Rev.2007). This was not the case. We did not make a “final determination going to the merits of the underlying conviction and sentence.” Martin, 556 So.2d at 359 . Nonetheless, we had, in fact, “exercised jurisdiction” over Jackson’s PCR proceedings, and “there is general language in our prior cases to the effect that the court to last exercise jurisdicti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 So. 3d 73 - Payton v. State

3. “(1) Any person sentenced by a court of record of the State of Mississippi, including a person currently incarcerated, ... may file a motion to vacate, set aside[,] or correct the judgment or sentence ... if the person claims: [[Image here]] (e) That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justicef.] 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 So. 3d 812 - Townes v. State