Brian Runnels v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CP-02053-COA
BRIAN RUNNELS
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
11/20/2008
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
CLAIBORNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRIAN RUNNELS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 02/16/2010
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Brian Runnels and four co-defendants were indicted for the October 29, 1994, armed
robbery and murder of Timothy Tillman. Runnels pled guilty to manslaughter and armed
robbery on April 21, 1995, and received sentences of twenty years for the manslaughter and
sixteen years for the armed robbery. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
Runnels thereafter filed multiple motions for post-conviction relief including the motion for
post-conviction relief at issue. However, the statutorily-mandated time for filing a motion
for post-conviction relief had already expired in this case. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)
(Supp. 2009). Moreover, in addition to the time bar, since Runnels filed multiple motions
for post-conviction relief, his motion is also barred as a successive writ. Miss. Code Ann.
§ 99-39-23(6) (Supp. 2009).
¶2.
A review of the history of this case reflects that on November 1, 1995, Runnels filed
his first motion for post-conviction relief. The motion was denied, and Runnels filed a notice
of appeal. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s ruling without
published opinion. Runnels v. State, 703 So. 2d 861 (Miss. 1997).
¶3.
Then, on February 28, 1998, Runnels filed a second motion for post-conviction relief,
but he failed to bring the motion for a hearing or pursue the motion further. On June 6, 2000,
Runnels filed yet a third motion for post-conviction relief. On July 17, 2000, Runnels filed
a motion for reconsideration after the circuit court denied this third motion. On May 16,
2001, Runnels filed a petition to show cause, which the circuit court denied. Runnels then
filed a notice of appeal. Runnels filed a second petition to show cause, which the circuit
court again denied.
¶4.
This Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in Runnels v. State, 919 So. 2d
1072, 1075 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Runnels thereafter filed a motion for relief from
judgment in the Circuit Court of Claiborne County. The court summarily denied the motion
on May 17, 2006. Then on appeal, this Court again upheld the judgment of the circuit court.
Runnels v. State, 957 So. 2d 424, 426 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).
¶5.
On September 8, 2008, Runnels filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit
court in which he alleged that he was being held under an illegal sentence. The circuit court
dismissed the motion, which it treated as a motion for post-conviction relief, and Runnels
2
filed this instant appeal.
DISCUSSION
¶6.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) provides that, in case of a guilty plea,
petitioners must raise a motion for post-conviction relief within three years after entry of the
judgment of conviction. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) also provides that
all successive petitions are barred if a petitioner has filed a previous motion for postconviction relief. See Freshwater v. State, 914 So. 2d 328, 329 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005);
Skinner v. State, 864 So. 2d 298, 299-300 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
¶7.
Both section 99-39-23(6) and section 99-39-5(2) provide exceptions to the procedural
bars in the following circumstances: (1) an intervening decision of the United States Supreme
Court or the Mississippi Supreme Court which would have actually had an adverse impact
on the conviction or sentence; (2) the petitioner has evidence, not reasonably discoverable
at the time of trial, which is such a nature that, had it been admitted at trial, would have
caused a different result in the conviction or sentence; and (3) when the petitioner alleges that
his sentence has expired or his probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully
revoked. This Court has recognized an additional exception allowing relief from the
statutory bars applicable to motions for post-conviction relief for situations where the
prisoner’s conviction or sentence constitutes a violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
Flowers v. State, 978 So. 2d 1281, 1284 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). The sentence imposed
on Runnels was lawful and violated no fundamental constitutional right.
¶8.
However, in his latest petition for post-conviction relief, Runnels argues that his
sentences for armed robbery and manslaughter have expired, because, according to Runnels,
3
he was only required to serve fifty percent of his sentence.1 Mississippi Code Annotated
section 97-3-25 (Rev. 2006) provides a maximum sentence of twenty years for a
manslaughter conviction. Further, Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-79 (Rev. 2006)
sets a minimum sentence of three years for armed robbery and a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment.2 Runnels was lawfully sentenced to serve twenty years for manslaughter and
sixteen years for armed robbery, with the sentences to run consecutively. Neither of
Runnels’s sentences exceeded the maximum sentences allowed by statute and fail to
constitute illegal sentences. Because Runnels was sentenced on April 25, 1995, his sentences
have not yet expired. Runnels’s sentences do not fall within any exception to the procedural
bars for post-conviction-relief petitions.
¶9.
Based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that the circuit court properly dismissed
the Runnels’s motion for post-conviction relief.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAIBORNE COUNTY
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAIBORNE COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
1
In his petition to enter a guilty plea, Runnels acknowledged that his attorney
informed him of the minimum and maximum sentences allowed by law for manslaughter and
armed robbery. The guilty plea petition contains no provision for Runnels to serve only
fifty-percent of his sentence.
2
The statute provides that a defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment for
armed robbery, if that sentence is set by a jury. Without a jury recommendation of a life
sentence, the trial judge must sentence the defendant to a term less than life. See Parker v.
State, 367 So. 2d 456, 458 (Miss. 1979).
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.
