James Harilton Granger, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CA-00182-COA
JAMES HARILTON GRANGER, JR.
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT 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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
12/30/1999
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
SHARON D. HENDERSON
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: CHARLES W. MARIS JR.
CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF
12/30/1999: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 07/24/2001
8/14/2001
BEFORE McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES, AND MYERS, JJ.
MYERS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. James Granger was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of sale of methamphetamine within fifteen
hundred feet of a church in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-142 (Rev. 2000). He was sentenced by
the Copiah County Circuit Court to serve eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections and to pay a fine of $5000. The trial court denied Granger's request for post-conviction relief
for lack of jurisdiction. Granger now appeals, arguing that the trial court did have jurisdiction to rule on the
matter.
FACTS
¶2. On March 11, 1997, a Copiah county grand jury indicted Granger on a charge of sale of
methamphetamine. The indictment alleged that, because the sale had occurred within 1500 feet of a church,
the crime was within the province of Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-142 (Rev. 2000) and thus subject to an
enhanced penalty of up to sixty years of incarceration and a two million dollar fine. The indictment also
alleged that Granger was subject to sentencing as an habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81
(Rev. 2000). Following plea negotiations, Granger pled guilty to one count of sale of methamphetamine.
¶3. Granger subsequently sought post-conviction relief on October 14, 1999, asserting that his plea was not
knowing, intelligent and voluntary. He submitted survey evidence indicating that the location of the alleged
sale was 1,659.59 feet from a church. The crux of Granger's argument was that, had he known that he
could not be subjected to the enhanced penalty provided by § 41-29-142, he would not have pled guilty to
the reduced charge of sale of methamphetamine. The circuit court denied the motion for post-conviction
relief. Granger attempts to rehash this argument on appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶4. It should be noted that, in his quest for post-conviction relief, Granger did not seek a withdrawal of his
guilty plea and a trial on the merits. Rather, he sought a reduction of his sentence. The circuit court cited
lack of jurisdiction as its basis for denying Granger post-conviction relief. In doing so, the trial court
reasoned that the basis proffered for relief was one that could have been raised prior to the entry of a guilty
plea. We agree. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21(1) (Rev. 2000) states that
[f]ailure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors either in fact or
law which were capable of determination at trial and/or on direct appeal, regardless of whether such
are based on the laws and the Constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall
constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of
cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver.
Id.
¶5. Furthermore, the distance from the point of alleged sale to the church does not constitute newly
discovered evidence such as would warrant re-opening the case. In order to succeed in a claim of newly
discovered evidence, "the proponent must show that the evidence 'has been discovered since the trial, that it
could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence, that it is material to the
issue, and that it is not merely cumulative, or impeaching.'" Ormond v. State, 599 So. 2d 951, 962 (Miss.
1992) (quoting Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 260, 263 (Miss.1986)). We do not see any reason why this
evidence could not have been discovered prior to sentencing.
¶6. The trial court acted properly in denying the post-conviction relief, and its decision is affirmed.
¶7. THE JUDGMENT OF THE COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., PAYNE, BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
IRVING AND CHANDLER, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
