# Brown v. State

> Mississippi Supreme Court · March 22, 2012 · 88 So. 3d 726

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923082

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph Patrick BROWN v. STATE of Mississippi
- **Court:** Mississippi Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 22, 2012
- **Citations:** 88 So. 3d 726; 2012 Miss. LEXIS 155; 2012 WL 954229
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dickinson
- **Judges:** Carlson, Chandler, Dickinson, King, Kitchens, Lamar, Pierce, Randolph, Waller
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923082

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming trial court's denial of post-conviction relief

## Opinion text

DICKINSON, Presiding Justice,
Dissenting:
¶23. Under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(c)(4)(ii), Brown unquestionably was entitled to the files and discovery he requested. But because a *734 procedural statute conflicts with the rule, the majority says the statute must control. I do not believe the Legislature has the authority to pass procedural rules in the first place; and I certainly do not agree that procedural statutes should control over a conflicting Court rules. The majority is of a different view, so I respectfully dissent.
CHANDLER, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4923082. Public record. Not legal advice.