Dillon Dewayne Williams a/k/a Dillon Williams v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-CA-00817-COA

DILLON DEWAYNE WILLIAMS A/K/A DILLON APPELLANT
WILLIAMS

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/19/2024
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GRADY FRANKLIN TOLLISON III
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MARSHALL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JAMES A. WILLIAMS
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/09/2025
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In 2010, Dillon Williams pled guilty to burglary of a dwelling under circumstances

likely to terrorize an occupant and aggravated assault with a sentencing enhancement because

the victim was age sixty-five or older. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms of

twenty-five years and forty years in the custody of the Department of Corrections.

¶2. Williams later filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) that the trial court

summarily dismissed as without merit. Williams filed a second PCR motion that the trial

court dismissed as an impermissible successive PCR motion. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-

23(6) (Rev. 2020). This Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Williams v. State, 126
So. 3d 992, 994 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Williams then filed a third PCR motion that the

trial court again denied based on the successive-motions bar. This Court and the Mississippi

Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. Williams v. State, 218 So. 3d 1190, 1191

(¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), aff’d, 222 So. 3d 265, 266 (¶1) (Miss. 2017).

¶3. In 2023, Williams filed a fourth PCR motion. The trial court dismissed the petition,

citing Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-7 (Rev. 2020). The trial court stated that

because Williams’s “conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme

Court on May 11, 2017,” Williams was “required to seek leave of the Mississippi Supreme

Court to file a [PCR] motion . . . in the trial court.” Williams filed a notice of appeal.

¶4. Section 99-39-7 provides:

[A PCR] motion . . . shall be filed as an original civil action in the trial court,
except in cases in which the petitioner’s conviction and sentence have been
appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi and there affirmed or the appeal
dismissed. Where the conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal
or the appeal has been dismissed, [a PCR] motion . . . shall not be filed in the
trial court until the motion shall have first been presented to a quorum of the
Justices of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, convened for said purpose either
in termtime or in vacation, and an order granted allowing the filing of such
motion in the trial court.

¶5. Williams’s convictions and sentences were not appealed to or affirmed by the

Mississippi Supreme Court or this Court. Rather, Williams’s prior appeals were from orders

denying PCR motions. Therefore, Williams was not required to seek leave from the Supreme

Court before filing a PCR motion in the trial court,1 and the trial court erred by dismissing

Williams’s fourth PCR motion pursuant to section 99-39-7.

1
See Hyland v. State, 401 So. 3d 1056, 1057-58 (¶¶2-9) & n.1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2024),
cert. denied, 401 So. 3d 1029 (Miss. 2025).

2
¶6. Despite the trial court’s error, the State urges us to affirm the trial court’s decision

based on the successive-motions bar and the three-year statute of limitations. See Miss. Code

Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020). However, our Supreme Court has held that when a trial court

erroneously dismisses a PCR motion for lack of “jurisdiction,” this Court “should not . . .

address[] the merits of [the] motion” on appeal. Graham v. State, 85 So. 3d 847, 850 (¶6)

(Miss. 2012). Rather, once this Court finds “that the circuit court improperly . . . denied

jurisdiction,” this Court must “remand[] [the] matter to the circuit court for further

consideration on the merits of [the] motion.” Id. As the Court explained in Graham, when

the underlying conviction and sentence were not appealed, “the circuit court has exclusive,

original jurisdiction to consider the merits of [the PCR] motion.” Id. at (¶5). Therefore, we

reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for the trial court to address

Williams’s PCR motion.

¶7. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE,
McCARTY, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.

3