In a recent ruling, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Justin Alexzander Geantt's appeal regarding his conviction for trafficking fentanyl. This decision impacts Geantt's legal options and reinforces the limitations on post-conviction relief in the state.
Geantt, who has also been known as Justin Alexander Geantt and Justin A. Geantt, was convicted in 2025 for trafficking fentanyl. The court's decision, filed under docket number 2025-CP-01059-COA on September 15, 2026, highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to overturn their convictions through post-conviction relief motions.
The case began when Geantt was indicted by a DeSoto County grand jury for five drug offenses, including trafficking fentanyl. He pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in exchange for the state dropping the other charges. The court sentenced him to twelve years in prison, followed by seven years of supervised release.
After his conviction, Geantt filed multiple motions for post-conviction relief. His first motion was denied in August 2024, and a second motion was dismissed shortly after in September 2024. In his third motion, Geantt claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and argued that his trafficking conviction was illegal because he believed he was only indicted for possession with intent to sell.
Judge Celeste Embrey Wilson of the DeSoto County Circuit Court dismissed Geantt's third motion, stating it was without merit and constituted an impermissible successive motion. The court ruled that Geantt had already been denied relief in previous motions and that he failed to demonstrate any statutory exceptions that would allow for a new motion.
The court's opinion clarified that Geantt's indictment was valid and properly charged him with trafficking. The court noted, “Geantt’s indictment—which expressly cites section 41-29-139(f), identifies the controlled substance (fentanyl), and identifies the dosage units of that controlled substance (forty (40) or more dosage units)—correctly sets forth the trafficking charge.”
Additionally, the court pointed out that Geantt had acknowledged his understanding of the charges against him during his guilty plea process. The ruling emphasized that the controlling document was the indictment, not the arrest warrant, which Geantt mistakenly relied upon to argue his case.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Geantt and others in similar situations. It reinforces the idea that individuals seeking post-conviction relief must adhere to strict procedural rules and limits on successive motions. The court's decision serves as a reminder that once a motion for post-conviction relief is denied, subsequent motions are generally barred unless they meet specific statutory exceptions.
This ruling may discourage others from pursuing similar appeals without strong legal grounds, as the court has made it clear that the burden of proof lies with the individual seeking relief. The decision also upholds the integrity of the criminal justice process by ensuring that guilty pleas are respected unless there is clear evidence of a legal error.
Looking ahead, Geantt may have limited options for further legal recourse. The ruling can be appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, but it is unclear if he will pursue this route. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or additional motions that may be pending.