Danny McGleachie v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2000-CP-01647-COA
DANNY MCGLEACHIE
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
08/23/2000
HON. GRAY EVANS
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL
RELIEF DENIED
AFFIRMED - 11/13/2001
; denied 4/11/2002
12/4/2001
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND LEE, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Danny McGleachie, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi
denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, McGleachie perfected this appeal, raising the
following issue as error:
I. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING
MCGLEACHIE'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. McGleachie entered a plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy on February 18, 1986, and was
sentenced to a suspended five year term. McGleachie entered a plea of guilty to conspiracy to deliver
marijuana on June 26, 1987, and was sentenced to a three year term with the last year suspended.
McGleachie was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in May of 1995 and was
sentenced as an habitual and subsequent offender to a sixty year term in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. McGleachie filed a motion for post-conviction relief pertaining to the June 1987
conviction on July 19, 2000. The lower court judge dismissed this motion as time barred.
ANALYSIS
I. DID THE LOWER COURT COMMIT MANIFEST ERROR IN DISMISSING
MCGLEACHIE'S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF?
¶3. McGleachie claims that he should have not been sentenced to parole for his 1987 offense due to the
fact that it was his second felony offense. McGleachie accurately cites Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-33 (2000)
in support of the claim that a sentence is not subject to suspension or probation when the defendant has
prior felony offenses. He continues to claim that due to the fact that he was sentenced to parole, that
sentence was illegal. McGleachie accurately cites United States v. Sine, 461 F.Supp. 565, 568 (D.S.C.
1978), as precedent supporting the right to be free from an illegal sentence as a fundamental right. He
further concludes that due to the fact that his fundamental rights were violated, the time bar should not apply
to his post-conviction relief motion. It is true that "errors which affect fundamental constitutional rights may
be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prohibit their considerations." Moss v. State,
752 So. 2d 427, 430 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). However, such an error was in McGleachie's favor, and we
will not allow him to now cite that error in claiming that his sentence was illegal.
¶4. We find it humorous that McGleachie asserts that he should have served more time for the June 26,
1987 conviction. McGleachie benefitted from the lenience of the lower court judge and would now like to
argue that such leniency was a violation of his fundamental rights. If the error in sentencing McGleachie for
the June 26, 1987 conviction is, in fact, an error at all, it is a harmless error rather than a fundamental one. It
is also an error, we might add, that benefitted McGleachie. The law that states that there is a fundamental
right to be free from an illegal sentence is interpreted to apply to sentences which cause the defendant to
endure an undue burden rather than the luxury of a lesser sentence. Therefore, the motion for postconviction relief is time barred. Because this motion for post-conviction relief is time barred, there is no
need to address the assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel.
¶5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO WASHINGTON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
