Danny Franklin Arnold v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-00794-COA
DANNY FRANKLIN ARNOLD
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
3/25/2004
HON. V. R. COTTEN
NESHOBA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DANNY FRANKLIN ARNOLD (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 10/04/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Danny Arnold filed a petition for post-conviction relief on February 11, 2004, in the Circuit Court
of Neshoba County. The circuit court found that Arnold had filed a previous motion for post-conviction
relief on or about January 9, 2003, which had been dismissed by order on June 4, 2003; consequently,
the circuit court held that the petition constituted a second or successive writ and pursuant to Mississippi
Code Annotated Section 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2000), was procedurally barred. The petition was summarily
dismissed. Arnold, acting pro se, perfected this appeal of that judgment and alleging that his guilty pleas
were not voluntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE
¶2.
This Court’s standard of review of a lower court’s denial of a petition for post-conviction relief
mandates that the trial court’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they are found to be clearly
erroneous. Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999). The applicable standard of review
is de novo when questions of law are raised. Id. The issue of whether Arnold’s petition is procedurally
barred as a second or successive writ is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.
¶3.
The circuit court’s finding that Arnold had previously filed for post-conviction relief on January 9,
2003, and been denied relief on June 4, 2003, is verified by the record. The circuit court’s holding that
section 99-39-23(6) provides that any order denying relief under this article is a final judgment and shall
be conclusive until reversed and shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this article, is a
correct statement of the law. The June 4, 2003 order denying post-conviction relief has not been reversed,
as verified by the record; therefore, the final judgment of June 4, 2003, bars this action.
¶4.
This Court has also examined the record and briefs for any qualified exemptions that might apply
to Arnold under the statute and finds that none are applicable.
¶5.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NESHOBA COUNTY DISMISSING
THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS
APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO NESHOBA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
2
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.
