Thomas Lee Jiles v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CP-00383-COA

THOMAS LEE JILES APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2023
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. JAMES CHANEY JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS LEE JILES (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/11/2024
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND EMFINGER, JJ.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Thomas Lee Jiles, pro se, appeals the dismissal of several motions the Warren County

Circuit Court treated as a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). Finding no error, we

affirm the dismissal.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

¶2. On April 10, 2019, Jiles pleaded guilty to the charge of armed robbery in the Warren

County Circuit Court. The conviction stemmed from an April 15, 2018 incident when

officers responded to St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Vicksburg, Mississippi. When Father

Thomas Lalor was leaving the church that evening, he was robbed at the church’s back door

by Jiles, who threatened to kill him with a large concrete brick unless Fr. Lalor gave Jiles
money. Fr. Lalor complied and gave Jiles $100 from his pocket. Jiles then fled. Earlier that

day, Jiles had come to the church asking for money. The church secretary had given Jiles

fifty dollars and paid for a local hotel room for the night. Jiles came back later that

afternoon asking for more money, but Fr. Lalor refused. Jiles then returned to the church

later that evening and robbed Fr. Lalor.

¶3. A municipal court judge issued a bench warrant for Jiles’s arrest a couple of days

after the armed robbery. At the time, Jiles was on parole from a prior conviction for uttering

a forgery in another jurisdiction.1 Jiles’s parole was subsequently revoked. He was initially

confined in the Warren County jail for five weeks (from April 17, 2018, until May 23, 2018)

after which he was transferred to the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections

(MDOC).

¶4. On January 30, 2019, Jiles was indicted for armed robbery in the Warren County

Circuit Court. His first two court-appointed attorneys were allowed to withdraw from his

case. Jiles’s third court-appointed attorney represented him at an omnibus hearing in March

2019. According to the hearing’s summary memorandum, trial was scheduled for April 15,

2019.

¶5. On April 10, 2019, Jiles pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The plea hearing transcript

1
Before Jiles had committed the armed robbery, in early April 2018, the Mississippi
Department of Corrections had issued a warrant for Jiles’s arrest due to failure to report to
his parole officer. The warrant stated that Jiles had been sentenced to serve ten years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the crime of uttering forgery in
Yazoo County, Mississippi. In April 2016, Jiles had been granted conditional parole.

2
showed that Jiles understood the charges against him, agreed that his attorney explained his

rights, and admitted that he was satisfied with his representation. On April 23, 2019, the

circuit court entered the judgment of conviction and sentenced Jiles to fifteen years in the

custody of the MDOC, with ten years to serve and five years suspended followed by five

years of post-release supervision.

¶6. Previously, Jiles has filed, and the circuit court has denied, two PCR motions related

to this conviction. This Court affirmed the Warren County Circuit Court’s denial of his first

PCR motion, filed in 2020, in Jiles v. State, 341 So. 3d 988 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). We

found the circuit court properly dismissed his motion when it found the court was without

“jurisdiction to review the revocation of Jiles’s parole imposed on him by another county’s

circuit court.” Id. at 989 (¶1). Further, the circuit court properly found Jiles’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claim was without merit because it was only supported by “his own

declaration and the bare allegations of the motion itself.” Id.

¶7. Approximately two months after this Court issued its opinion, Jiles filed what the

circuit court interpreted as a second PCR motion, entitled “Motion to Resolve All ‘Lawful’

Unlawful Acts by Defendants” (the “Defendants” being those that “violated [his] rights”

while he was confined at the Warren County jail following his arrest for armed robbery).

Jiles raised many of the same issues found in his first PCR motion. Jiles complained that he

was unlawfully held in custody for five weeks at the Warren County jail while awaiting

transport to Yazoo County where the hearing on his parole revocation would later occur.

3
In September 2022, the circuit court dismissed Jiles’s second PCR motion, explaining that

since Jiles’s grievances arose from his Yazoo County conviction and parole revocation, the

Warren County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over them. Further, the circuit court found

his PCR motion was barred as successive. Jiles did not appeal this ruling.

¶8. In December 2022, Jiles filed the several motions that are the subject of the instant

appeal: his “Motion for Reconsideration for All Reason,” “Motion for Recusal of

Judges/Motion of Review,” “Motion for Recusal of Judges,” and letter-motion “Notice to

the Honorable James Chaney.” In each motion, Jiles made similar arguments, again arguing

that his constitutional rights were violated and his subsequent confinement in the Warren

County jail was illegal. Additionally, he requested that Warren County Circuit Court Judge

James Chaney Jr. recuse himself from the case. The circuit court considered these motions

as Jiles’s third request for post-conviction relief.

¶9. On March 9, 2023, the circuit court dismissed these motions, finding them successive

and now time-barred with no applicable exceptions to the time-bar.2 Aggrieved, Jiles

appealed.3

2
In addition to Jiles’s PCR motions, he has filed numerous other motions in the
circuit court, this Court, and the Mississippi Supreme Court, consistently making similar
arguments to those found in his PCR motions, including these: he was arrested and
unlawfully detained without due process of law, he was denied a bail hearing, he was denied
the right to counsel, his plea counsel was ineffective, and his right to a speedy trial was
violated.
3
We note the initial record submitted to this Court in June 2023 contained only the
circuit clerk’s docket entries, the circuit court’s judgment, and Jiles’s notice of appeal; the
record did not contain the four documents that were considered Jiles’s PCR motion. See

4
STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10. “When reviewing a trial court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR [motion], we will only

disturb the trial court’s factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we review

the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Hall v. State, 370

So. 3d 214, 216 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Cuevas v. State, 304 So. 3d 1163, 1167

(¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)).

ANALYSIS

I. Statutory Bars

¶11. The circuit court found Jiles’s PCR motion barred as successive and by time. Any

order denying or dismissing a PCR motion bars a second or successive motion. Miss. Code

Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2020). This is Jiles’s third attempt at post-conviction collateral

relief; therefore, the circuit court properly found his motions barred as successive.4 Further,

the movant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence that he has met one

of the statutory exceptions to the successive-motions bar. Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840,

843 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Robinson v. State, 19 So. 3d 140, 143-44 (¶16)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2009); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6)). Jiles provided no evidence of such

M.R.C.P. 54(c) (stating records relied upon by trial court in post-conviction relief summary
dismissal must be placed in PCR motion cause number’s file). Because this Court must
review the same materials as the circuit court, we found it necessary, under our own
initiative, for the circuit clerk to supplement the record with the missing documents under
Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 10. In response, the circuit court sent Jiles’s entire
record on this charge for our review.
4
Jiles denies that he has filed two previous PCR motions.

5
an exception. Additionally, the claims made in this PCR motion were made in Jiles’s first

and second PCR motions. The doctrine of res judicata prevents the litigation of claims that

were made during previous litigation. Green v. State, 362 So. 3d 1134, 1138 (¶10) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2019) (citing Stokes v. State, 199 So. 3d 745, 749 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)).

¶12. Additionally, a PCR motion challenging a guilty plea must be filed within three years

after the entry of the judgment of conviction. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020).

Here, the judgment of conviction was filed on April 23, 2019. Three of the four documents

the circuit court considered as his PCR motion were filed in December 2022, and the fourth

letter-motion “notice” to the circuit court judge was filed in February 2023. Thus, none of

these documents were filed within the three-year time limit. We agree with the circuit court

that the motions are time-barred. Jiles claims in his reply brief that “all of his pleadings and

petitions” were filed in a timely manner and excepted from the time-bar, but he is incorrect.

Jiles does not show that any of the statutory exceptions to the time-bar apply.

¶13. Finally, Jiles argues that PCR claims involving fundamental constitutional rights,

such as his, are excepted from the time-bar. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court has

overruled the judicially created fundamental rights exception in Howell v. State, 358 So. 3d

613, 616 (¶12) (Miss. 2023). Thus, Jiles’s argument to evade the time-bar fails.

II. Claims

¶14. Jiles has repeatedly raised the same claims over the years in his various motions for

6
post-conviction relief.5 Jiles argues there were numerous procedural violations starting

when he was arrested for armed robbery while on parole for uttering a forgery in another

jurisdiction. His complaints all stem from his alleged illegal detention for thirty-six days in

the Warren County jail—from April 17, 2018, until May 23, 2018—after which Jiles was

transferred to the custody of MDOC.

¶15. Jiles complains that he was denied an initial appearance, a preliminary hearing, the

right to counsel, a bond hearing, and a speedy trial. However, Jiles pleaded guilty to armed

robbery on April 10, 2019. “A valid guilty plea operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional

rights or defects which are incident to trial.” Logan v. State, 771 So. 2d 970, 972 (¶5) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Anderson v. State, 577 So. 2d 390, 391 (Miss. 1991)). Moreover,

the plea petition that Jiles signed specifically states he waived certain rights, including the

right to a speedy trial and assistance of counsel at all stages of the proceedings. Thus, all of

these matters were waived when Jiles pleaded guilty.

¶16. Further, Jiles argues that his plea was involuntary and that his counsel was

ineffective, claims that were not raised in the instant motions before the circuit court. “A

petitioner who fails to raise an issue in his motion for post-conviction relief before the trial

court may not raise that issue for the first time on appeal.” Stamps v. State, 151 So. 3d 248,

255 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Fluker v. State, 17 So. 3d 181, 183 (¶5) (Miss. Ct.

5
Jiles claims that he is not challenging his parole revocation and subsequent
confinement, as the March 2023 order states (and which was the basis of this Court’s
affirming the dismissal of Jiles’s first PCR motion for lack of jurisdiction in Jiles).

7
App. 2009)). Therefore, these claims are waived as well.

CONCLUSION

¶17. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Jiles’s PCR motion as time-barred and

successive. No exceptions to the time-bar applied. Jiles’s remaining arguments are waived

either because he pleaded guilty or did not raise them in his PCR motion before the circuit

court. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order.

¶18. AFFIRMED.

CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, McDONALD,
LAWRENCE, McCARTY, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR.

8