Gabriel McDowell v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CP-02306-COA
GABRIEL MCDOWELL A/K/A GARY MCDOWELL
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
11/22/2002
HON. JERRY O. TERRY, SR.
HANCOCK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GABRIEL MCDOWELL (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
CONO CARANNA
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 09/13/2005
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On October 15, 1999, Gabriel McDowell was convicted of the sale of cocaine by a jury in the
Hancock County Circuit Court. McDowell was sentenced to serve thirty years without the possibility of
parole imposed as an habitual offender. The supreme court affirmed McDowell’s conviction in McDowell
v. State, 807 So. 2d 413 (Miss. 2001). In May 2002, McDowell filed an application in the supreme court
for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court. On October 4, 2002, McDowell was
granted an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose of determining whether McDowell was properly
sentenced as an habitual offender.
¶2.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted on November 22, 2002, in the trial court. The trial court
found that McDowell had previously committed two felonies, one of which was a crime of violence, and
had served more than one year for each conviction. Thus, the trial court determined that, under Mississippi
Code Annotated Section 99-19-83 (Rev. 2000), the only sentencing option for McDowell was life without
parole. Rather than appealing this sentence, McDowell, on March 7, 2003, filed a petition for writ of
mandamus, a motion to show cause, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion for rehearing in the
supreme court. Finding that McDowell should have pursued a direct appeal, the supreme court declined
to review his motions and, thus, denied each one.
¶3.
McDowell then filed a notice of appeal on October 23, 2003, from the trial court’s judgment
wherein he was re-sentenced to life without parole. In an order dated January 15, 2004, the trial court
found that, although McDowell’s notice of appeal was untimely, “he should be afforded an opportunity to
appeal the ruling on his motion for post-conviction relief, which resulted in his sentence being increased
from 30 years without parole to life without parole.” However, in an order dated March 17, 2004, the
supreme court denied McDowell’s application for leave to proceed in the trial court and motion for leave
to appeal from the lower court and dismissed with prejudice McDowell’s motion to vacate sentence.
¶4.
In his appeal McDowell argues the following: (1) the re-sentencing was based upon insufficient
proof of prior convictions; (2) re-sentencing him violated his right against double jeopardy; and (3) that he
was denied his due process right of assistance of counsel during the sentencing stage.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
2
¶5.
The standard of review for a denial of a post-conviction motion is as follows: the findings of the trial
court must be clearly erroneous in order for this Court to overturn a lower court's denial of a motion for
post-conviction relief. McClinton v. State, 799 So. 2d 123, 126 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
DISCUSSION
¶6.
According to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-7 (Supp. 2004),
Where the conviction and sentence have been affirmed on appeal or the appeal has been
dismissed, the motion under this article shall not be filed in the trial court until the motion
shall have first been presented to a quorum of the justices of the supreme court of
Mississippi, convened for said purpose either in term-time or in vacation, and an order
granted allowing the filing of such motion in the trial court.
¶7.
On March 17, 2004, the supreme court issued an order in case number 2002-M-00733, wherein
the panel of three justices ultimately found that “the petitioner’s attempt to perfect an appeal from the
sentence that the circuit court imposed on November 22, 2003, following his post-conviction relief hearing
is untimely. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed in the
Trial Court and Motion for Leave to Appeal from the Lower Court are hereby denied, and the Motion to
Vacate Sentence is dismissed with prejudice.” Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear McDowell’s
appeal.
¶8.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HANCOCK COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE,
JJ., CONCUR. IRVING, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
3
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
