Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rowland v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 2010No. 2008-CT-00731-SCTPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

KITCHENS, JUSTICE,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

¶ 18. I agree with the majority that errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights are excepted from the procedural bars of the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (“UPCCRA”). Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (Rev.2007). I do not think, however, that there is any compelling reason to remand this case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing, because no additional proof is required for a sound judicial determination that Row*509land’s convictions for armed robbery run afoul of the federal and state constitutional provisions…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brown v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Northern Elec. Co. v. PhillipsMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Meeks v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Fuselier v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  5. University of Southern Miss. v. WilliamsMississippi Supreme Court · 2004

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API