Anthony M. Berryhill v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-00243-COA
ANTHONY M. BERRYHILL
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
2/21/2007
HON. PAUL S. FUNDERBURK
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ANTHONY M. BERRYHILL (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED – 12/04/2007
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND ROBERTS, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Anthony Berryhill pleaded guilty to murder in 1995 and was sentenced to a mandatory life
sentence in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Berryhill then filed three
different motions for post-conviction relief, the most recent of which was in 2006. The Lee County
Circuit Court denied Berryhill’s most recent motion. Aggrieved, he appeals and asserts five points
of error that he believes entitle him to relief.
¶2.
Finding that Berryhill’s appeal is barred, we affirm.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶3.
Berryhill first requested post-conviction relief in 1997, and it is unclear as to whether
Berryhill appealed the court’s denial of his 1997 petition.1 Berryhill again sought post-conviction
relief on February 2, 2001. The trial court denied him relief, and Berryhill appealed the denial to the
Mississippi Supreme Court. His appeal was ultimately dismissed for failure to file an appellate brief.
The motion for post-conviction relief upon which Berryhill’s current appeal is based was filed on
October 27, 2006.
¶4.
The trial court correctly denied Berryhill’s third motion as being barred as a successive writ:
[A]ny order dismissing the prisoner’s motion or otherwise denying relief under this
article is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to
a second or successive motion under this article. Excepted from this prohibition is
a motion . . . raising the issue of the convict’s supervening insanity prior to the
execution of a sentence of death. . . . Likewise excepted from this prohibition are
those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been an
intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi or the
United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his
conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the
time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had
such been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction
or sentence. Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his
sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been
unlawfully revoked.
Miss. Code Ann. §99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2007). There is no evidence that the 1997 denial of postconviction relief was reversed. Therefore, the 1997 judgment stands as a final judgment that bars
Berryhill’s subsequent motions for post-conviction relief. Berryhill has made no showing that he
meets any of the exceptions detailed above. Therefore, the court correctly found that Berryhill’s
most recent motion for post-conviction relief is barred as a successive writ.
1
The trial court stated that the denial of Berryhill’s first motion for post-conviction relief had
been affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court, but the State claims that the record is “unclear as
to whether Berryhill sought appellate review of the 1997 denial of relief[.]” The record is void of
any document showing whether Berryhill appealed the denial of his 1997 motion.
2
¶5.
Furthermore, the State correctly points out that Berryhill’s most recent petition is also
untimely. According to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2007), Berryhill had
three years after his plea of guilty in which to file a motion for post-conviction relief. His most
recent motion was filed over eleven years after his plea. Therefore, his motion for post-conviction
relief is also time-barred.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY DISMISSING
THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LEE COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
