In Re: Charlie Blunt

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Serial: 224102 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2013-M-00686 CHARLIE BLUNT Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Petition for an Order to Show Cause filed by Charlie Blunt. The petition is in the nature of a request for post-conviction relief and is considered as such. Blunt’s direct appeal became final in 2013. The petition is subject to the time bar. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5. Further, Blunt’s numerous prior petitions for postconviction relief have been denied or dismissed. The petition is subject to the successive writ bar. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27. The Court finds that the issues raised in the petition were substantially addressed in Blunt’s direct appeal and in prior post-conviction proceedings and are barred by res judicata. After due consideration, we find that Blunt has presented no arguable basis for his claims, that no exception to the procedural bars exists, and that the petition should be dismissed. See Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). Notwithstanding the procedural bars, the Court finds that the claims raised in the petition are without merit. Finally, we find that the present filing is frivolous and that Blunt should be restricted from filing further applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) that are related to this conviction and sentence in forma pauperis. See Order, Walton v. State, 2009-M-00329 (Miss. Apr. 12, 2018). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for an Order to Show Cause is dismissed. SO ORDERED, this the 17th day of April, 2019. /s/ Dawn H. Beam DAWN H. BEAM, JUSTICE FOR THE COURT TO DISMISS AND ISSUE SANCTIONS: BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ. TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DISMISS: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI 2 No. 2013-M-00686 CHARLIE BLUNT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT: ¶1. Today, this Court prioritizes efficiency over justice and bars Charlie Blunt from its doors. Because the imposition of monetary sanctions against indigent defendants and the restriction of access to the court system serve only to punish those defendants and to violate rights guaranteed by the United States and Mississippi Constitutions, I strongly oppose this Court’s order restricting Blunt from filing further petitions for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis. ¶2. This Court seems to tire of reading motions that it deems “frivolous” and imposes monetary sanctions on indigent defendants. The Court then bars those defendants, who in all likelihood are unable to pay the imposed sanctions, from future filings. In choosing to prioritize efficiency over justice, this Court forgets the oath that each justice took before assuming office. That oath stated in relevant part, “I . . . solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. . . .” Yet this Court deems the frequency of Blunt’s filing to be too onerous a burden and decides to restrict Blunt from filing subsequent applications for post-conviction collateral relief. See In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186–87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 3 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“I continue to find puzzling the Court’s fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.”). ¶3. Article 3, section 25, of the Mississippi Constitution provides that “no person shall be debarred from prosecuting or defending any civil cause for or against him or herself, before any tribunal in the state, by him or herself, or counsel, or both.” Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26 (emphasis added). Mississippi Code Section 99-39-7 provides that actions under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act are civil actions. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7 (Rev. 2015). Therefore, this State’s Constitution grants unfettered access in civil causes to any tribunal in the State. The Court’s decision to deny Blunt’s filing actions in forma pauperis is a violation of his State constitutional right to access to the courts. ¶4. The decision to cut off an indigent defendant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis is also a violation of that defendant’s fundamental right to vindicate his constitutional rights, for Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the recognition of these and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became a fundamental right. Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You’re Out of Court-It May Be Effective, but Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474–75 (1997). As United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, 4 In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having “abused the system,” . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here. In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 19, 111 S. Ct. 1569, 1571, 114 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Instead of simply denying or dismissing those motions that lack merit, the Court seeks to punish Blunt for arguing his claims. ¶5. Although each justice took an oath to do equal right to the poor and rich, this Court does not deny access to the court defendants who are fortunate enough to have monetary resources. Those defendants may file endless petitions, while indigent defendants are forced to sit silently by. An individual who, even incorrectly, believes that she has been deprived of her freedom should not be expected to sit silently by and wait to be forgotten. “Historically, the convictions with the best chances of being overturned were those that got repeatedly reviewed on appeal or those chosen by legal institutions such as the Innocence Project and the Center on Wrongful Convictions.” Emily Barone, The Wrongly Convicted: Why more falsely accused people are being exonerated today than ever before, Time, http://time.com/wrongly-convicted/ (last visited Nov. 1, 2018) (emphasis added). The Washington Post reports that the average time served for the 1,625 exonerated individuals in the registry is more than nine years. Last year, three innocent murder defendants in Cleveland were exonerated 39 years after they were convicted—they spent their entire adult lives in prison—and even they were lucky: We know without doubt that the vast majority of innocent defendants who are convicted of crimes are never identified and cleared. 5 Samuel Gross, Opinion, The Staggering Number of Wrongful Convictions in America, Washington Post (July 24, 2015), http://wapo.st/1SGHcyd?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.4 bed8ad6f2cc. ¶6. Rather than violating Blunt’s fundamental rights by restricting his access to the courts, I would simply dismiss his petition for post-conviction relief. KITCHENS, P.J., JOINS THIS SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT. 6

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.