Recardo Frazier a/k/a Recardo Randell Frazier a/k/a Ricardo Frazier v. State of Mississippi

Electronic Document Sep 16 2025 15:36:44 2016-M-01363 Pages: 5

Serial: 259277 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 2016-M-01363

RECARDO FRAZIER A/K/A RECARDO RANDELL Petitioner FRAZIER A/K/A RICARDO FRAZIER

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Appellant’s Brief in Support of Appeal from Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Counsel filed pro se by Recardo Frazier. The filing is in the nature of a petition for post-conviction relief and is considered as such. The Court finds that Frazier’s previous petition for post-conviction relief was denied and that the present filing is successive. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-27 (Rev. 2020). The Court further finds that the issues raised in this petition actually have been considered and rejected in prior proceedings or could have been raised. These claims are therefore barred. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-21 (Rev. 2020). Notwithstanding the bars, we find that Frazier has presented no arguable basis for his claims and that the petition should be denied. See Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438, 442 (Miss. 2010). The Court further finds that the claims raised in the successive petition are frivolous. Frazier is warned that future filings deemed frivolous could result in monetary sanctions or in restrictions on his ability to file applications for post-conviction collateral relief (or pleadings in that nature) in forma pauperis. See Order, Dunn v. State, 2016-

M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018). SO ORDERED.

TO DENY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS WARNING: RANDOLPH, C.J., MAXWELL, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE, GRIFFIS, BRANNING, AND SULLIVAN, JJ.

TO DENY: KING AND COLEMAN, P.JJ.

KING, P.J. OBJECTS TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

DIGITAL SIGNATURE Order#: 259277 Sig Serial: 100011067 Org: SC /J'tt~ Date : 09/16/2025 David M. Ishee, Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2016-M-01363

Recardo Frazier a/k/a Recardo Randell Frazier a/k/a Ricardo Frazier

v. State of Mississippi

KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, OBJECTING TO THE ORDER IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

¶1. Although I agree that Recardo Frazier’s application for post-conviction relief lacks merit, I disagree with the Court’s finding that the application is frivolous and with its warning that future filings deemed frivolous may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief in forma pauperis.1 ¶2. This Court previously has defined a frivolous motion to mean one filed in which the movant has “no hope of success.” Roland v. State, 666 So. 2d 747, 751 (Miss. 1995). However, “though a case may be weak or ‘light-headed,’ that is not sufficient to label it frivolous.” Calhoun v. State, 849 So. 2d 892, 897 (Miss. 2003). In his application for post-conviction relief, Frazier made reasonable arguments. As such, I disagree with the Court’s determination that Frazier’s application is frivolous. ¶3. Additionally, I disagree with this Court’s warning that future filings may result in monetary sanctions or restrictions on filing applications for post-conviction collateral relief

1 See Order, Dunn v. State, No. 2016-M-01514 (Miss. Nov. 15, 2018).

in forma pauperis. The imposition of monetary sanctions on a criminal defendant proceeding in forma pauperis only serves to punish or preclude that defendant from his lawful right to appeal. Black’s Law Dictionary defines sanction as “[a] provision that gives force to a legal imperative by either rewarding obedience or punishing disobedience.” Sanction, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (emphasis added). Instead of punishing the defendant for filing a motion, I believe that this Court should simply deny or dismiss motions that lack merit. As Justice Brennan wisely stated,

The Court’s order purports to be motivated by this litigant’s disproportionate consumption of the Court’s time and resources. Yet if his filings are truly as repetitious as it appears, it hardly takes much time to identify them as such. I find it difficult to see how the amount of time and resources required to deal properly with McDonald’s petitions could be so great as to justify the step we now take. Indeed, the time that has been consumed in the preparation of the present order barring the door to Mr. McDonald far exceeds that which would have been necessary to process his petitions for the next several years at least. I continue to find puzzling the Court’s fervor in ensuring that rights granted to the poor are not abused, even when so doing actually increases the drain on our limited resources.

In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 186–87, 109 S. Ct. 993, 997, 103 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1989) (Brennan, J., dissenting).2

2 See also In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 19, 111 S. Ct. 1569, 1571, 114 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“In closing its doors today to another indigent litigant, the Court moves ever closer to the day when it leaves an indigent litigant with a meritorious claim out in the cold. And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, and with each instance in which it castigates such litigants for having ‘abused the system,’ . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here.”).

¶4. The same logic applies to the restriction on filing subsequent applications for post-conviction relief. To cut off an indigent defendant’s right to proceed in forma pauperis is to cut off his access to the courts. This, in itself, violates a defendant’s constitutional rights, for

Among the rights recognized by the Court as being fundamental are the rights to be free from invidious racial discrimination, to marry, to practice their religion, to communicate with free persons, to have due process in disciplinary proceedings, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the recognition of these and other rights, the right of access to courts, which is necessary to vindicate all constitutional rights, also became a fundamental right.

Joseph T. Lukens, The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Three Strikes and You’re Out of Court-It May Be Effective, but Is It Constitutional?, 70 Temp. L. Rev. 471, 474–75 (1997). This Court must not discourage convicted defendants from exercising their right to appeal. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1986). Novel arguments that might remove a criminal defendant from confinement should not be discouraged by the threat of monetary sanctions and restrictions on filings. Id. ¶5. Therefore, although I find no merit in Frazier’s application for post-conviction relief, I disagree with this Court’s contention that the application merits the classification of frivolous and with its warning of future sanctions and restrictions.