When a Second Petition isn't REALLY a Second Petition
File this under "Things You Don't See Every Day:" a Rankin County Circuit Court judge reversed without dissent at the Court of Appeals in a post-conviction relief case involving a pro se litigant.
Catchings v. State featured an inmate who pleaded guilty but sought and received post-conviction relief, in the form of resentencing, after challenging the voluntariness of his plea. The petitioner then began pursuing post-conviction relief again, but the circuit court held that the attempt amounted to a successive (and, therefore, procedurally barred) petition.
By a 10-0 vote, with Judge Carlton joining in result only, the Court held that the petition was not procedurally barred, and that when a post-conviction petitioner successfully challenges his conviction and pleads to a new charge, he is entitled to pursue post-conviction relief on the new sentence.
Not an on-the-merits ruling, but interesting nonetheless.
Comments