George Freshwater v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CA-01138-COA
GEORGE FRESHWATER
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
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:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
6/10/2002
HON. RICHARD A. SMITH
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GEORGE T. KELLY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
JOYCE CHILES
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED.
AFFIRMED: 11/1/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., CHANDLER AND ISHEE, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
On December 4, 1998, George Freshwater entered a guiltyplea in the Circuit Court of Washington
County to a charge of possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell, transfer, or
distribute. He received a twenty year sentence for his crime. Freshwater then filed a motion for postconviction relief, which was denied by the circuit court. Aggrieved, Freshwater appealed the circuit court’s
denial, and a decision was rendered in that appeal by this Court on August 21, 2001. Freshwater v.
State, 794 So.2d 274 (Miss. App. 2001). This Court held that Freshwater’s sentence by the circuit court
judge was within the statutory and constitutional limitations for the crime committed, and that the judge was
not in error for following the statutory guidelines. Id. at (¶¶ 9-11). Freshwater then filed a second postconviction relief motion before the Washington County Circuit Court. Finding that Freshwater’s second
post-conviction relief motion is barred as a successive petition and by the statute of limitations, we affirm
the decision of the circuit court.
DISCUSSION
¶2.
An order dismissing a prisoner’s motion, or otherwise denying relief under the post-conviction
relief statute is a final judgment, and shall be conclusive until reversed. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23
(6) (Supp. 2004). The judgment shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this chapter. Id.
Aside from insanity, (which only applies in death penalty cases), there are only two exceptions allowed
for a prisoner to defeat the successive writ bar: (1) where there has been an intervening decision by the
United States Supreme Court, or the Mississippi Supreme Court, in which the prisoner can show
adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence, or that he has newly discovered evidence
which if it had been introduced at trial would have caused a different result, and (2) where the prisoner
claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully
revoked. Id.
¶3.
Freshwater claims that his plea was an uninformed one because the sentencing guidelines did not
specifically refer to his crime. As a result, Freshwater believes that he should be able to withdraw his guilty
plea. Since this argument is not within either of the successive-writ exceptions, Freshwater’s claims are
barred. Freshwater should have brought all of his known claims in his first motion for post-conviction relief.
Failure to do so results in a loss of claims as a second or successive motion. Rochell v. State, No. 2004CP-00455 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct. App. March 15, 2005).
2
¶4.
Additionally, Freshwater’s claims are time barred. In the case of a guilty plea, a motion for relief
shall be made within three years after entry of the judgment of conviction. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)
(Supp. 2004). The same exceptions that apply to the successive-writ bar apply here as well. Id.
Freshwater’s guilty plea was entered on December 4, 1998. His first petition before the Washington
County Circuit Court was filed on July 7, 1999. His second petition was filed on April 10, 2002. While
Freshwater’s first petition was timely filed, his second petition was not. Because Freshwater’s arguments
do not fall within the exceptions for a procedural time bar, Freshwater’s claims are barred here as well.
CONCLUSION
¶5.
None of the applicable exceptions under Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 99-39-23(6) and 99-
39-5(2) apply to Freshwater’s claims. As a result, these claims are barred as a successive writ, as well
as being time barred. Therefore, Freshwater’s second motion for post-conviction relief by the
Washington County Circuit Court was properly denied.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
¶6.
DENYING POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THE APPEAL
ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., BRIDGES, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
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.
