Brent Edison Murphy v. Christopher B. Epps
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-02089-COA
BRENT EDISON MURPHY
APPELLANT
v.
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, RONALD KING A/K/A
RON KING AND ALICIA BOX
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:
APPELLEES
10/10/2007
HON. PRENTISS GREENE HARRELL
PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
BRENT EDISON MURPHY (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DENIED MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
APPELLANT’S PRISON SENTENCE
DISMISSED - 12/09/2008
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
MYERS, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Brent Murphy filed a petition for a motion to show cause in the Circuit Court of Pearl
River County against officials of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC),
claiming that he was not given full credit for time served in Louisiana while charges against
him for robbery in Mississippi were pending. Murphy argued that the MDOC acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner. Specifically, Murphy contends it was error for MDOC to
give him credit for time spent in Louisiana only from the date of the Mississippi armed
robbery indictment forward. The trial court denied his motion, finding that the MDOC’s
decision to credit Murphy with jail time at the filing of the indictment was within its
discretion and determined that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Feeling
aggrieved, Murphy appeals the trial court’s denial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
On May 2, 2003, Murphy was indicted for committing armed robbery, stemming from
an incident that occurred
on June 10, 2002.
The indictment went unserved for
approximately two years while Murphy was incarcerated in Louisiana on unrelated charges.
Murphy’s original indictment for armed robbery became nolle prosequi, and he pleaded on
a bill of information to simple robbery. On March 9, 2006, Murphy was sentenced to fifteen
years in the custody of MDOC. The trial judge ordered that Murphy should be given credit
for time served in Louisiana while the charges were pending in Mississippi. The MDOC
gave Murphy credit for a total of 985 days of pre-sentence jail time. The MDOC credited
Murphy for time served from May 2, 2003, through June 13, 2005; August 9, 2005, through
August 11, 2005; and August 11, 2005, through March 9, 2006. Murphy did not receive
credit for time served from June 13, 2002, through May 2, 2003.
¶3.
Murphy filed a motion to show cause, arguing the MDOC was arbitrary and
capricious for only giving him credit toward his Mississippi robbery sentence for time spent
in Louisiana from the date of the armed robbery indictment forward. On October 12, 2007,
the trial court, treating his motion as one for post-conviction relief, denied the motion,
2
finding that the MDOC decision to credit Murphy with jail time at the filing of the detainer
was within its discretion and determined that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
On November 28, 2007, Murphy’s notice of appeal was filed with the Pearl River Circuit
Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
This Court will not disturb the trial court's decision to deny post-conviction relief
unless the trial court's decision proves to be clearly erroneous. Arnold v. State, 912 So. 2d
202, 203 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). We, however, reviews questions of law de novo.
Hoskins v. State, 934 So. 2d 326, 328 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING MURPHY’S
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE.
¶5.
Although neither party raised this issue in its initial briefing to this Court, the
timeliness of appeals is a jurisdictional issue, and we must acknowledge our own lack of
jurisdiction. Michael v. Michael, 650 So. 2d 469, 471 (Miss. 1995). If the notice of appeal
is not timely filed, the appellate court simply does not have jurisdiction. Id.
¶6.
Rule 4(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth time limits for
filing an appeal: “[I]n a civil or criminal case in which an appeal or cross-appeal is permitted
by law as of right from a trial court to the Supreme Court, the notice of appeal . . . shall be
filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment
or order appealed from.” M.R.A.P. Rule 4(a).
¶7.
The trial court denied Murphy’s motion to show cause on October 12, 2007.
3
Murphy’s notice of appeal was signed by him on November 21, 2007, and filed with the
Circuit Court on November 28, 2007, both of which are clearly outside the thirty days
allotted in M.R.A.P. 4(a).
¶8.
The trial court can extend the thirty day period, if prior to the thirty days, the moving
party request such an extension and provides a good cause for it. Monroe v. State, 843 So.
2d 83, 85 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing M.R.A.P. 4(g)). Additionally, the trial court can
permit an extension of time after the thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect. Id.
Murphy did not move for an extension of time in the trial court during or after the thirty days
provided to him in M.R.A.P. 4. Moreover, the record contains no evidence of a good cause
or excusable neglect which could support an extension of the thirty day time limitation.
Therefore, Murphy’s appeal to this Court is dismissed as untimely.
¶9.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO PEARL RIVER COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS 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.