James C. Winding a/k/a James Winding v. State of Mississippi

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Serial: 229185 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2012-M-01135 JAMES C. WINDING A/K/A JAMES WINDING Petitioner v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent EN BANC ORDER Before the Court, en banc, is the “Motion for Plead [sic] of Actual Innocence” filed pro se by James Winding. The filing is in the nature of a motion for post-conviction relief, and it is treated as such. Winding’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the mandate issued on August 23, 2005. Winding v. State, 908 So. 2d 163 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Today’s application for leave of this Court to file a petition for post-conviction relief in the trial court is Winding’s sixth. The Court finds that it is both time-barred and successive and that it does not meet any of the exceptions to the procedural bars. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-395(2), 99-39-27(9) (Rev. 2015). Accordingly, it should be denied. Winding was previously warned that future filings deemed frivolous may result not only in additional monetary sanctions, but also restrictions on filing applications for postconviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. En Banc Order, Winding v. State, 2012-M-01135 (Miss. Nov. 29, 2018). We find that this filing is frivolous and that Winding 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 En Banc Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. April 11, 2019). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the “Motion for Plead [sic] of Actual Innocence” is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Winding is hereby 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. The Clerk of this Court shall not accept for filing any further applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) from Winding that are related to this conviction and sentence unless he pays the applicable docket fee. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of January, 2020. /s/ Robert P. Chamberlin ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE FOR THE COURT TO DENY WITH SANCTIONS: RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ. TO DENY: KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ. KING, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KITCHENS, P.J. 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 2012-M-01135 JAMES C. WINDING A/K/A JAMES WINDING 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 James C. Winding 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 Winding 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. . . .” Miss. Const. art. 6, § 155. Yet this Court deems the frequency of Winding’s filings to 3 be too onerous a burden and decides to restrict Winding 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 (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) (emphasis added). Therefore, this State’s Constitution grants unfettered access in civil causes to any tribunal in the State. The Court’s decision to deny Winding’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 4 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, 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 Winding 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, 5 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. 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 Winding’s fundamental rights by restricting his access to the courts, I would simply deny 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.