Carl Lee Johnson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CP-00204-COA
CARL LEE JOHNSON A/K/A CARL LEE
GRIFFIN
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
01/09/2008
HON. KENNETH L. THOMAS
COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CARL LEE JOHNSON (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
APPEAL DISMISSED - 02/24/2009
EN BANC.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Carl Lee Johnson appeals the Coahoma County Circuit Court’s order denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus for post-conviction relief. This Court finds that Johnson’s
claims are not properly before it, and his appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.
FACTS
¶2.
Johnson was convicted in May 1995 in the Coahoma County Circuit Court on a
charge of aggravated assault of a police officer. He was sentenced by a jury as a habitual
offender to a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections without eligibility for parole. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this
Court on appeal, and his petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Mississippi
Supreme Court.
¶3.
Johnson filed three previous applications for leave from the supreme court to seek
post-conviction relief that were denied in February, March, and May 2000. He also filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi that was denied in October 2000. Six years later, he filed the present petition
for writ of habeas corpus for post-conviction relief in the circuit court in December 2006,
and it was summarily denied because it was time-barred. Johnson filed a timely appeal
which is now before this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
This Court will not reverse a trial court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief
unless we find the decision to be clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150
(¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). However, when reviewing questions of law, the applicable
standard of review is de novo. Hoskins v. State, 934 So. 2d 326, 328 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App.
2006).
DISCUSSION
Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review Johnson’s petition.
2
¶5.
Before we begin reviewing the issues raised by Johnson on appeal, we must first
determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review his petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2007) clearly states:
Where the conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal or the appeal
has been dismissed, the motion [for post-conviction relief] shall not be filed
in the trial court until the motion shall have first been presented to a quorum
of the justices of the supreme court of Mississippi, convened for said purpose
either in term-time or in vacation, and an order granted allowing the filing of
such motion in the trial court.
Johnson asserts that his petition was not subject to the statutory mandate because he did not
file it pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act at Mississippi Code
Annotated sections 99-39-1 to -27 (Rev. 2007). Instead, he argues that he filed his petition
under Rule 8.01 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court, which was in effect at the
time of his conviction. However, his argument is without merit because Mississippi Code
Annotated section 99-39-3 (Rev. 2007) “abolishe[d] the common law writs relat[ed] to postconviction collateral relief,” and the writ of habeas corpus was included among those
repealed. Therefore, the petition that Johnson filed in the Coahoma County Circuit Court
for a writ of habeas corpus must be treated as a motion for post-conviction relief. See
Jackson v. State, 915 So. 2d 484, 485 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
¶6.
This Court has consistently held that if a conviction and sentence were affirmed on
appeal, the statutory requirement to receive permission from the supreme court before
seeking post-conviction relief at the trial court is “not merely advisory, but jurisdictional.”
Doss v. State, 757 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Johnson filed several
3
applications seeking leave from the supreme court in 2000, all of which were denied, and he
did not seek leave before filing this petition. Because he did not have the supreme court’s
permission to file a motion for post-conviction relief with the Coahoma County Circuit
Court, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Johnson’s motion. See Craft v. State,
966 So. 2d 856, 857 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). Similarly, this Court is also without
jurisdiction to review Johnson’s appeal.
¶7.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO COAHOMA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND
CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
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.
