Steven Lamont Crosby v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-01803-COA
STEVEN LAMONT CROSBY A/K/A STEVE SALTER
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
8/29/2007
HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN, III
RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
STEVEN LAMONT CROSBY (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
APPEAL DISMISSED - 05/20/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., IRVING AND ROBERTS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
In February 2002, Steven Lamont Crosby was tried and found guilty by a jury in the Circuit
Court of Rankin County of aggravated assault, kidnaping, and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. Crosby was sentenced on February 8, 2002, to serve three life sentences without parole as
a habitual offender in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. His conviction was
affirmed on appeal. Crosby v. State, 856 So. 2d 523, 531 (¶27) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).
¶2.
On January 20, 2006, Crosby filed his motion for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court
of Rankin County, arguing that he was denied due process of law. The trial court dismissed
Crosby’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-3911(2) (Rev. 2007).1 In finding no merit in Crosby’s motion, the trial court noted that the Mississippi
Supreme Court had previously denied Crosby’s application for leave to proceed in the trial court on
August 5, 2005. On February 15, 2006, the supreme court, finding that Crosby’s motion was barred
as a successive writ, again dismissed Crosby’s application for leave to proceed in the trial court.
¶3.
Finding that we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
A trial court’s dismissal of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding that
the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2002). However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo.
Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶5.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2007) provides that a post-conviction
relief motion must first be filed in the trial court “except in cases in which the prisoner’s conviction
and sentence have been appealed to the supreme court of Mississippi and there affirmed or the
appeal dismissed.” Section 99-39-7 goes on to state:
Where the conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal or the appeal has
been dismissed, the motion under this article shall not be filed in the trial court until
the motion shall have been presented to a quorum of the justices of the supreme court
of Mississippi, . . . and an order granted allowing the filing of such motion in the trial
court.
1
Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) states: “If it plainly appears from the face
of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not
entitled to any relief, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the prisoner to be
notified.”
2
¶6.
Crosby filed a motion for permission to proceed in the trial court, but his motion was denied.
Because Crosby was not granted permission from the supreme court, the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain his request for post-conviction relief. Likewise, this court lacks jurisdiction
to entertain an appeal of that action.
¶7.
We find that Crosby’s motion for post-conviction relief is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
¶8.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO RANKIN COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
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.
