The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled that Devin Allen Bennett can pursue a post-conviction relief petition based on newly discovered evidence. This decision affects Bennett, who was convicted of capital murder in 2003 for the death of his two-month-old son. The ruling is significant as it allows Bennett to challenge his conviction after years of legal battles.
Bennett was sentenced to death by a Rankin County jury in 2003. His conviction was upheld by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2006. In 2008, the court granted him the opportunity to seek post-conviction relief, focusing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial. However, his attempts for relief were ultimately denied in 2023.
The current case, filed under docket number 2025-DR-01074-SCT, centers around Bennett's motion to file a post-conviction relief petition. The State of Mississippi responded with a motion to dismiss Bennett's successive petition, arguing that it was barred by time and was a successive petition. Bennett countered with a response, leading to the court's decision.
The court ruled that Bennett's claim of newly discovered evidence could proceed. The justices stated, "Having considered Bennett’s claim of newly discovered evidence, an exception to the time bar and successive-writ bar, the Court finds that Bennett should be granted leave to proceed in the trial court on that claim as presented to this Court." The ruling allows Bennett to file his motion in the trial court regarding the newly discovered evidence.
All justices agreed on the ruling, which denies the State's motion to dismiss Bennett's successive petition for post-conviction relief. This decision opens the door for Bennett to present new evidence that may impact his conviction and sentence.
The impact of this ruling is significant for Bennett, who has been fighting for years to overturn his conviction. If the newly discovered evidence is compelling, it could lead to a re-evaluation of his case and potentially alter the outcome of his original conviction. This ruling also highlights the importance of ensuring that all evidence is considered in capital cases, where the stakes are incredibly high.
Going forward, Bennett's case will return to the trial court, where he can present his new evidence. This could lead to a new hearing or trial, depending on the nature of the evidence and its implications for his conviction. The court's decision underscores the legal system's commitment to addressing claims of wrongful convictions, especially in cases involving the death penalty.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the State could potentially challenge the ruling, but it would depend on the outcomes in the trial court regarding the new evidence. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court filing.