Robert E. White, III v. Christopher B. Epps
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2010-CP-00008-COA
ROBERT E. WHITE III
APPELLANT
v.
CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS
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
12/03/2009
HON. BILLY JOE LANDRUM
JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ROBERT E. WHITE III (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED - 02/08/2011
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
Robert E. White III was convicted of manslaughter by a jury in the Jones County
Circuit Court. White was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC). This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
See White v. State, 796 So. 2d 269 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶2.
On September 11, 2009, approximately ten years after his conviction, White filed a
writ of habeas corpus in the Greene County Circuit Court. Finding that White’s motion was
in the nature of a post-conviction proceeding, the Greene County Circuit Court transferred
venue to Jones County, where White was convicted. The Jones County Circuit Court
determined that White had failed to obtain permission from the Mississippi Supreme Court
to file his motion as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Supp. 2010).
The trial court also noted that White’s motion was filed outside the three-year statute of
limitations. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 2010). As such, the trial court denied
White’s motion for post-conviction relief.
¶3.
White now appeals, asserting the following, which we state verbatim: (1) whether the
lower court(s) erred by not evaluating the soundness of the judgment as a foundation for a
valid commitment order, and (2) whether MDOC holds a valid commitment order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
A trial court’s denial of a motion for post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent
a finding that the trial court’s decision to deny the motion was clearly erroneous. Smith v.
State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). However, when reviewing issues
of law, this Court’s proper standard of review is de novo. Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595,
598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶5.
We first note that White cites to Strickland v. Howell, 654 So. 2d 1387 (Miss. 1995),
to support his assertion that his writ of habeas corpus is not a petition for post-conviction
relief and as a result, is not barred by the provisions of the Mississippi Uniform Postconviction Collateral Relief Act (the Act). See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-1 to -29 (Rev.
2007). However, Strickland is inapplicable because White’s argument does in fact concern
2
his post-conviction status. White is not claiming that he was never indicted or convicted;
rather, White’s arguments concern insufficiency of the indictment and jury instructions.
Therefore, the provisions in the Act are applicable in this instance.
¶6.
Section 99-39-7 requires that a defendant must seek permission from the supreme
court before filing a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. White failed to do
so. We have held that “[t]his procedure is not merely advisory, but jurisdictional.” Doss v.
State, 757 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000); see also Varnado v. State, 31 So.
3d 658, 660 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Because White did not have permission from the
supreme court, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear his motion for post-conviction
relief. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial based on its lack of jurisdiction.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO JONES COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
