Regina Krickbaum v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-01421-COA
REGINA KRICKBAUM
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
07/17/2007
HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS, JR.
CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
REGINA KRICKBAUM (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
DENIED
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 09/16/2008
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
¶1.
Regina Krickbaum appeals from an order denying her “motion for records and transcripts”
incident to her having pled guilty to armed robbery before the Clay County Circuit Court. The State
responded with a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because we have no appellate
jurisdiction over a request for a transcript that was not raised as part of a direct appeal or a motion
for post-conviction collateral relief, the State’s motion to dismiss is granted. Accordingly,
Krickbaum’s appeal of her denied “motion for records and transcripts” is dismissed without
prejudice.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
Krickbaum went before the Clay County Circuit Court and pled guilty to armed robbery.
The circuit court sentenced Krickbaum to eighteen years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. Subsequently, Krickbaum filed a “motion for records and transcripts.”
The circuit court denied Krickbaum’s motion for production of records. Krickbaum requested to
appeal in forma pauperis, and the circuit court granted Krickbaum’s request. Krickbaum now
appeals, and the State argues that this Court should dismiss Krickbaum’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
ANALYSIS
¶3.
It is important to note that Krickbaum solely moved for a copy of her transcript and her
circuit court records. Krickbaum did not file a petition for post-conviction collateral relief. Now,
she appeals the circuit court’s decision to deny her motion for a copy of her transcript and records.
However, Krickbaum “does not have a constitutional or common law right to appeal to this Court;
instead, [her] ability to appeal is based entirely on statute.” Shanks v. State, 906 So. 2d 760, 761
(¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Fleming v. State, 553 So. 2d 505, 506 (Miss. 1989)).
¶4.
“There are two primary ways a criminal defendant may challenge a trial court proceeding:
a direct appeal from conviction under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101 (Rev. 2002) or a proceeding
under the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1 to 29 (Rev. 2000 &
Supp. 2004).” Id. Because Krickbaum pled guilty to armed robbery, she forfeited her right to a
direct appeal of her conviction. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101 (Rev. 2007). Therefore, Krickbaum’s
only available alternative to challenge her conviction is by way of the Mississippi Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief Act. Krickbaum’s request for a free copy of her transcript and circuit court record
did not accompany a petition for post-conviction collateral relief.
2
¶5.
The following language from Fleming is particularly pertinent:
A prisoner who has filed a proper motion pursuant to this Act, and whose motion has
withstood summary dismissal under § 99-39-11(2), may be entitled to trial transcripts
or other relevant documents under the discovery provisions of § 99-39-15, upon good
cause shown and in the discretion of the trial judge. If the prisoner’s request for
transcripts or other documents is denied, and his overall petition is ultimately denied,
then he may appeal the denial of his petition for collateral relief pursuant to §
99-39-25[,] which provides that final judgments entered under the Act may be
reviewed by this Court on appeal brought by either the State or the prisoner. Within
that appeal, the prisoner may include the claim that the denial of his request for
transcripts or other documents was error . . . .
However, nothing in the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act or elsewhere
gives a prisoner the right to institute an independent, original action for a free
transcript or other documents, and then if dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling,
to directly appeal that ruling to this [c]ourt as a separate and independent action.
Fleming did not file his request for free transcript and other documents as part of a
motion under the Act for post-conviction collateral relief, nor is this claim raised as
part of a direct appeal from conviction.
Therefore, this appeal should be dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.
Fleming, 553 So. 2d at 506 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added).
¶6.
Krickbaum is not without options. Assuming that such a petition would be timely and that
she follows the requirements of the Mississippi Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Krickbaum
has the option of properly filing a petition for post-conviction relief in the Clay County Circuit
Court. However, we will not find that the circuit court erred “for declining to require the State to
subsidize a ‘fishing expedition.’” Shanks, 906 So. 2d at 762 (¶5). The circuit court may require that
she demonstrate some specific need before it requires the State to provide Krickbaum with a free
copy of her transcript and circuit court records for use in a collateral proceeding. Id. However,
because Krickbaum did not petition for post-conviction collateral relief when she requested a free
copy of her transcript and circuit court records, we have no jurisdiction over this matter.
Consequently, we are required to dismiss Krickbaum’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Fleming, 553 So. 2d at 506.
3
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CLAY
COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
