Background
Devin Allen Bennett was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for killing his two-month-old son, and a Rankin County jury sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
In 2008, the court granted Bennett leave to seek post-conviction relief in the trial court solely on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. That effort ultimately failed. Bennett later sought permission to file another post-conviction petition, this time presenting a claim based on newly discovered evidence. The State moved to dismiss the filing as untimely and successive.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Supreme Court acknowledged that Bennett’s proposed petition was subject to Mississippi’s time bar and successive-writ bar. It nevertheless concluded that his newly discovered evidence claim qualified for an exception to those procedural bars.
The court granted Bennett leave to file a post-conviction motion in the trial court, but only insofar as the motion concerns the newly discovered evidence claim presented to the Supreme Court. It also denied the State’s motion to dismiss. All justices agreed with the en banc order.
Key Takeaways
- Bennett may pursue his newly discovered evidence claim in the trial court despite the generally applicable time and successive-writ bars.
- The order grants permission to litigate the claim; it does not decide the claim’s merits or award post-conviction relief.
- The authorization is limited to the newly discovered evidence claim as presented to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Why It Matters
The order permits further trial-court proceedings in a capital case that had already completed direct review and an earlier round of post-conviction litigation. It illustrates that a qualifying newly discovered evidence claim may overcome Mississippi’s procedural restrictions on untimely and successive post-conviction petitions.