Alaric Black v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CP-00807-COA
ALARIC BLACK
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
5/26/2005
HON. SHARION R. AYCOCK
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ALARIC BLACK (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JACOB RAY
CIVIL– POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED.
AFFIRMED: 08/21/2007
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Alaric Black appeals the Lee County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief. On appeal, Black asserts that he is serving an illegal sentence because of a defective
indictment and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding Black’s claims are procedurally barred,
this Court affirms the denial of post-conviction relief.
FACTS
¶2.
On November 21, 1995, Black was indicted by a Lee County Grand Jury for the sale of a
controlled substance within 1500 feet of a school, in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substance
Law of the State of Mississippi, Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 41-29-101 to -187 (Rev.
2005). On August 8, 1996, Black pled guilty to the offense and was sentenced to serve twenty years
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶3.
Black filed a motion for post-conviction relief, asserting that his indictment was ineffective
because it was not marked “filed” by the court and because it did not contain an affidavit from the
jury foreman. This post-conviction relief request was denied on July 7, 1997.
¶4.
Black filed a second motion for post-conviction relief on April 26, 2005. Black argued that
the Lee County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to initially sentence him, that there existed material
facts not previously presented before the Court, and Black reargued that his indictment was
defective. The court denied post-conviction relief on May 26, 2005. The trial court found that
Black’s motion was untimely filed outside of the three years allowed for post-conviction relief
motions, Black’s motion was a successive writ, and that there was no merit to Black’s claims.
¶5.
On June 20, 2005, Black filed a motion for rehearing on the denial of his second post-
conviction relief motion. This motion was denied on April 10, 2006. The court found this motion
was his third filing for post-conviction relief and that it was procedurally barred as successive writ.
The court also stated that Black’s claims were without merit and a hearing was not required.
¶6.
On May 3, 2006, Black filed an appeal of the final judgment entered on the motion for
rehearing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
This Court reviews denials of post-conviction relief motions under a clearly erroneous
standard. Donnelly v. State, 887 So. 2d 833, 835 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Questions of law,
however, are reviewed de novo. Smith v. State, 918 So. 2d 850, 851 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
ANALYSIS
Whether Black’s claims are procedurally barred.
2
¶8.
The denial of a post-conviction relief motion is a final judgment and bars subsequent requests
for post-conviction relief unless (1) there are issues with the defendant’s supervening insanity prior
to the execution of a death sentence , (2) there has been an intervening decision of the United States
Supreme Court or of the Mississippi Supreme Court, which would require a different outcome or
sentence, (3) there is newly discovered evidence, which was not previously discoverable, that would
have been practically conclusive if it were available at trial, or (4) the defendant claims that his
sentence has expired, or his probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.
Miss. Code Ann. §99-39-23 (6) (Supp. 2006).
¶9.
The circuit court dismissed Black’s claims on March 10, 2006, finding that the claims were
procedurally barred as a successive writ, as well as finding the claims were without merit and the
court was without authority to reduce or modify Black’s lawfully imposed sentence after he already
had begun to serve that sentence.
¶10.
Black’s claims were his third request for post-conviction relief. He carried the burden of
proving that he satisfied at least one of the exceptions to Section 99-39-23(6) in order to survive the
procedural bar. See Carbin v. State, 942 So. 2d 231, 233 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Black also had
to prove that, even if he satisfied an exception, the trial court had not previously decided on the
merits of those claims. Stone v. State, 872 So. 2d 87, 89 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
¶11.
Black fails his burden of production by not providing any evidence or facts that would satisfy
any of the exceptions to the successive writ bar. Likewise, this Court’s review of the record shows
no evidence of facts that would satisfy the successive writ bar exceptions. Black’s request for postconviction relief is procedurally barred as a successive writ, and this Court affirms the denial of postconviction relief.
3
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO LEE COUNTY.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
