Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Weeks v. State
Citations: 139 So. 3d 727; 2013 WL 5313134; 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 617Docket: No. 2012-CP-00574-COA
Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi; September 24, 2013; Mississippi; State Appellate Court
Rubin Weeks appealed the dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) by the Hinds County Circuit Court. He contended that Mississippi wrongfully extradited him to Missouri, leading to his serving time for his Mississippi sentence while incarcerated in Missouri for separate offenses. Weeks was initially convicted of burglary in Mississippi and granted conditional parole, but the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) issued a warrant for his arrest due to parole violations. He was then extradited to Missouri, where he pled guilty to kidnapping and rape, receiving concurrent sentences. Weeks filed his PCR motion on November 21, 2011, in Hinds County, despite being convicted in Scott County. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, a decision subject to a de novo standard of review concerning legal questions such as jurisdiction. Weeks argued that Mississippi's extradition was improper and that he had already served the revoked portion of his sentence. However, he failed to provide evidence that his parole had been revoked before his extradition or that a revocation hearing occurred. The court highlighted Weeks' responsibility to support his claims with a proper record and noted that PCR motions must be filed in the court where the original sentence was imposed, further solidifying Hinds County's lack of jurisdiction. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, assigning all costs to Hinds County and clarifying that the appeal was related to Weeks’s burglary conviction and the associated detainer. The court maintained its jurisdiction to determine jurisdictional matters before addressing substantive issues.