Bryce Dallas v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-01339-COA
DR. BRYCE DALLAS A/K/A BRYCE FREDERICK
DALLAS
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
06/28/2007
HON. LAMAR PICKARD
COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRYCE DALLAS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - DISMISSED
AFFIRMED: 07/29/2008
BEFORE LEE, P.J., CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
GRIFFIS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Dr. Bryce Dallas pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling. Thereafter, Dallas filed a motion
entitled, “Petition for Relief.” The Circuit Court of Copiah County dismissed Dallas’s petition. On
appeal, Dallas argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing his petition and asserts the following
assignments of error: (1) he filed this motion under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60, (2) he
is suffering ongoing state and federal constitutional violations by hate groups, (3) he claims he is
innocent, (4) he is entitled to constitutional equality, and (5) other grounds. We affirm the circuit
court’s dismissal.
FACTS
¶2.
After Dallas pleaded guilty in March 1992, he was sentenced to serve eight years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.1 The circuit court’s order in this case reveals
that Dallas previously “filed for post[-]conviction relief in [the Circuit Court of Copiah County]
through his Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea.” The circuit court also found that Dallas “appealed that
final judgment dated June 21, 1993, to the Mississippi Supreme Court in Cause Number 93-KP008800-SCT, Bryce Dallas v. State of Mississippi.” The supreme court affirmed the circuit court.
ANALYSIS
¶3.
Clearly, Dallas’s petition for relief is barred. Even though Dallas styled his petition as a
“Petition For Relief,” it is, in fact, a motion for post-conviction collateral relief because Dallas
argues that his guilty plea was involuntary. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(f) (Rev. 2007).
Therefore, Dallas is subject to the procedural bars listed in the post-conviction-collateral-relief
statute. One requirement of our post-conviction-collateral-relief statute is that the petitioner must
be incarcerated in a Mississippi prison or jail under a sentence from a Mississippi court. See Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1).
¶4.
Dallas filed his petition for post-conviction collateral relief pro se with a return address in
Tennessee. Furthermore, Dallas’s sentence expired over eight years ago. We can only conclude that
Dallas is no longer a prisoner in Mississippi and is living in Tennessee. Thus, the circuit court did
not have jurisdiction and correctly dismissed Dallas’s petition because Dallas no longer meets the
initial requirement for any petition for post-conviction collateral relief, which is to be incarcerated
in Mississippi.
¶5.
Alternatively, Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2007) states, “[w]here the
1
Dallas’s briefs filed with this Court and his petition for relief have a return address of 1361
Riley Creek Rd., Whitleyville, TN 38588. Furthermore, Dallas’s sentence expired approximately
in March of 2000. Therefore, we can only conclude that he is no longer in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections.
2
conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal or the appeal has been dismissed, the motion
under this chapter shall not be filed in the trial court until the motion shall have first been presented
to . . . the [S]upreme [C]ourt of Mississippi . . . .” Dallas did not present his new motion to the
Mississippi Supreme Court before he filed it in the circuit court. Therefore, we must also affirm the
trial court’s decision because “the supreme court has initial jurisdiction over a post-conviction
proceeding where that court is the one that last exercised jurisdiction in the case.” Perry v. State,
759 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DISMISSING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, 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.