Donnelly v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-01210-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CP-01210-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-31-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ - Section 99-39-23(5) & (6) - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges, P.J., Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-20-2003 Appealed from: Grenada County Circuit Court Judge: Joseph H. Loper Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2003-0343CV-L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Lonnie Donnelly |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 writ - Section 99-39-23(5) & (6) - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lonnie Donnelly pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery and was sentenced to twenty years on each count, to run concurrently. Donnelly filed a petition to clarify and correct sentence which was dismissed. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Donnelly then filed a second motion to clarify sentence, which the court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Donnelly argues that the court erred in denying his petition for post-conviction relief because there was newly discovered evidence that proved his innocence, i.e., letters and affidavits from three co-defendants who stated that he was innocent and never participated in the events. Section 99-39-23(5) and (6) prohibits the filing of successive writs for post-conviction relief, with certain exceptions one of which is if the prisoner has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such evidence been introduced at trial it would have caused a different result. Donnelly does not offer a scintilla of evidence to show why the testimony of these three co-defendants was not reasonably discoverable prior to his guilty plea. In addition, the record is devoid of letters or affidavits from the three co-defendants. Therefore, Donnelly has failed to make the proper showing and his petition was procedurally barred as a successive writ. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
