Thomas J. Amerson v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-00630-COA
THOMAS J. AMERSON
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
03/12/2009
HON. LESTER F. WILLIAMSON JR.
LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
THOMAS J. AMERSON (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LISA LYNN BLOUNT
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED – 12/08/2009
BEFORE MYERS, P.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Thomas J. Amerson was convicted of arson and, in a separate cause number, of
destroying public property and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced in the aggregate to ten
years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. At the time of his convictions, Amerson was
also serving a five-year sentence for carrying a concealed weapon. Amerson appealed the
arson conviction, which was affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Amerson v. State,
628 So. 2d 1383 (Miss. 1993). Thereafter, Amerson unsuccessfully sought permission from
the Mississippi Supreme Court to pursue post-conviction relief (PCR) in the circuit court.
Notwithstanding his failure to obtain permission, Amerson filed a PCR motion in the
Lauderdale County Circuit Court, challenging his sentence for the arson conviction.
¶2.
The circuit court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Amerson’s PCR motion
pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2007) because he had failed
to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court.
¶3.
A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding
that the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous.” Callins v. State, 975 So. 2d 219, 222
(¶8) (Miss. 2008) (quoting Lambert v. State, 941 So. 2d 804, 807 (¶14) (Miss. 2006)). In
addition, “questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id. (quoting Lambert, 941 So. 2d at 807
(¶14)).
¶4.
In this case, the circuit court was correct that it did not have jurisdiction to consider
Amerson’s PCR motion. Section 99-39-7 states that there must be “an order granted
allowing the filing of such motion in the trial court.” Therefore, we affirm the judgment of
the circuit court.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LAUDERDALE COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON
AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR. ROBERTS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
2
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.
