Field v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00307-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CP-00307-COA ; 2002-CT-00307-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-15-2003 Opinion Author: Thomas, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive motion - Section 99-39-23(6) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-11-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA DISMISSED AS A SUCCESSIVE MOTION AND A FRIVOLOUS PLEADING. District Attorney: Cono A. Caranna, II Case Number: B2402-98-00615 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John Clayton Field |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Successive motion - Section 99-39-23(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Field pled guilty to a charge of sexual battery and was sentenced to twenty years without parole. He filed a motion to vacate guilty plea which the court denied. Field again filed his motion which the court again denied. Field then filed another motion to vacate guilty plea which the court denied as a successive motion. Field appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Section 99-39-23(6) provides that an order dismissing the prisoner's motion or otherwise denying relief shall be a bar to a second or successive motion unless it raises the issue of the convict's supervening insanity prior to the execution of a sentence of death, the prisoner can demonstrate that there has been an intervening U.S. or Mississippi Supreme Court decision which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction, that he has evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial which would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence, or the prisoner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. Because none of these exceptions apply in this case, the court did not err in dismissing Field’s motion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
