Larry Smith v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CP-00538-COA
LARRY SMITH A/K/A LARRY FLOYD SMITH
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
12/07/2007
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LARRY SMITH (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED AND DISMISSED
AFFIRMED-06/23/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On February 11, 1997, Larry Smith pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual battery
of two minors under the age of fourteen. He was sentenced to serve a term of thirty years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. After the Scott County Circuit
Court denied and dismissed Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief, Smith filed this appeal.
FACTS
¶2.
Larry Smith pleaded guilty on February 11, 1997, to two counts of sexual battery for
engaging in the sexual penetration of two male children, a four-year-old and a five-year-old.
He was sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Not long after receiving
his sentences, Smith filed a motion in the Scott County Circuit Court for the production of
records and transcripts as well as a motion for appointment of counsel. He then filed a writ
of mandamus in the circuit court, which was denied. On July 7, 2000, Smith filed a motion
for post-conviction relief in the circuit court, which was also denied. He appealed the circuit
court’s decision, and this Court affirmed the denial of Smith’s motion on January 15, 2002.
Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). Next, Smith filed a federal writ of
habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi,
which was denied, as was the writ of certiorari that he filed with the United States Supreme
Court.
¶3.
Subsequently, Smith filed his second motion for post-conviction relief in the Scott
County Circuit Court. The circuit court entered an order denying and dismissing the motion,
finding it to be time-barred and barred as a successive writ. Smith appeals the circuit court’s
judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
When reviewing a denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, this Court will not
reverse the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.
Andrews v. State, 932 So. 2d 61, 62 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). However, where questions
of law are raised, the applicable standard of review is de novo. Id.
DISCUSSION
2
¶5.
The circuit court denied and dismissed Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief in
accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Supp. 2008), which
provides that “any order dismissing the prisoner’s motion or otherwise denying relief under
this article is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a
second or successive motion under this article.”
The statute includes the following
exceptions to the prohibition:
[1] a motion filed under Section 99-19-57(2), raising the issue of the offender’s
supervening mental illness before the execution of a sentence of death[;] . . .
[2] those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been
an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi
or the United States that would have actually adversely affected the outcome
of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably
discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be
practically conclusive that, if it had been introduced at trial, it would have
caused a different result in the conviction or sentence[;] . . . [and] [3] those
cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his
probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6). Because Smith had previously filed a motion for postconviction relief and his second motion for post-conviction relief did not fit into any of the
statute’s exceptions, the circuit court found that he was barred from filing a second motion.
¶6.
In addition, the circuit court found that Smith was time-barred from filing a motion
for post-conviction relief because Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev.
2007) requires that a motion for post-conviction relief be filed “within three years after entry
of the judgment of conviction.” The statute also provides the following exceptions to the
three-year time limit:
[1] those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there has been
an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi
or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome
3
of his conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably
discoverable at the time of trial, which is of such nature that it would be
practically conclusive that had such been introduced at trial it would have
caused a different result in the conviction or sentence[;] . . . . [2] those cases
in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation,
parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked[;] . . . . [and] [3]
filings for post-conviction relief in capital cases which shall be made within
one year (1) after conviction.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2). Smith pleaded guilty on February 11, 1997, and he filed his
motion for post-conviction relief on July 20, 2007, which was well beyond the three-year
time limit. His case did not fit into any of the statute’s exceptions; therefore, the circuit court
found that his motion was time-barred.
¶7.
We agree with the circuit court that Smith was procedurally barred from filing his
motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to sections 99-39-23(6) and 99-39-5(2).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment that it was without jurisdiction to
consider Smith’s motion and that Smith is barred from filing this motion and further motions
for post-conviction relief.
¶8.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING
AND DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SCOTT
COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, 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.
