John Clayton Field v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00307-COA
JOHN CLAYTON FIELD
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT 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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
1/11/2002
HON. JERRY O. TERRY, SR.
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JOHN CLAYTON FIELD (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SCOTT STUART
CONO A. CARANNA, II
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA
DISMISSED AS A SUCCESSIVE MOTION AND
A FRIVOLOUS PLEADING.
AFFIRMED - 04/15/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
John Clayton Field, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Harrison County denying his
motion to vacate guilty plea. Aggrieved, he asserts fifty assorted issues on appeal. Due to our disposition
of the case, we need not list them or discuss them here. The chief question is instead as follows:
I.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING FIELD'S MOTION AS
PROCEDURALLY BARRED BY STATUTE AS A SUCCESSIVE MOTION?
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2.
John Clayton Field was indicted on November 20, 1998, for the commission of sexual battery
against two children under the age of fourteen and for gratification of lust against another child under the
age of fourteen. Field entered a plea of guilty to Count I, a charge of sexual battery against one of the
children, on March 3, 2000, and was sentenced to serve a term of twenty years without parole. Field filed
a motion to vacate guilty plea on August 18, 2000, based on grounds that the court failed to advise him of
the minium sentence he was facing, that his plea was induced by fear and deception, and that he was denied
effective assistance of counsel. This motion was denied for failing to comply with the requirements of Miss.
Code Ann. § 99-39-9 on October 20, 2000. The trial court held that Field's motion did not contain a
separate statement of specific facts either within or not within his personal knowledge, how the facts would
be proven, had no attached affidavits of witnesses and copies of documents, and was not verified by the
oath of the prisoner.
¶3.
On December 15, 2000, Field again filed his motion along with a statement of facts, list of
proceedings, a verification of petitioner, two affidavits, and a request for information that he did not
currently have. On April 2, 2001, the trial court again denied Field's motion. In doing so, the trial court
found that Field gave a sworn statement in which he acknowledged that he could receive between zero and
thirty years in prison, and that the affidavits from Field's sister and brother were not made on personal
knowledge and consisted virtually entirely of hearsay. Field's brother's affidavit provided no information
and basically claimed that he did not know anything regarding the questions Field had posed. The trial
court found that neither affidavit was acceptable evidence nor demonstrated any probative value on Field's
issues. The trial court also found that Field's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel did not
2
meet the standard. Based upon its findings, the trial court denied the relief and dismissed the motion on
April 2, 2001.
¶4.
Field filed another motion to vacate guilty plea on November 20, 2001. The trial court found that
in this motion Field acknowledged that he previously filed a motion to withdraw plea which was denied and
dismissed. Therefore, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6), the trial court found Field's motion
barred as a successive motion. Since Field had acknowledged that he had previously filed for and been
denied the relief requested in the motion, the court went on to find the filing frivolous, thereby triggering the
forfeiture provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-138(3). This order was entered on January 16, 2002,
and Field filed a notice of appeal on February 15, 2002.
ANALYSIS
I.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING FIELD'S MOTION AS
PROCEDURALLY BARRED BY STATUTE AS A SUCCESSIVE MOTION?
¶5.
Field asserts fifty issues in his brief. Most of them, however, were not contained in the motion filed
with the trial court. Issues not raised at the trial court level may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Gardner v. State, 531 So. 2d 805, 808-9 (Miss. 1988). The central issue at bar is whether the trial court
erred in dismissing Field's motion as procedurally barred by statute as a successive motion. The trial court
found that the issues put forth by Field in his last motion were contained in his previous motion which was
dismissed by order on April 2, 2001. Field failed to appeal this order, and the judgment was final and
conclusive.
¶6.
The law supporting the successive writ bar is statutory and states as follows:
The order as provided in subsection (5) of this section or any order dismissing the
prisoner's motion or otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and shall
be conclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this
article. Excepted from this prohibition is a motion filed pursuant to Section 99-19-57(2),
3
Mississippi Code of 1972, raising the issue of the convict's supervening insanity prior to
the execution of a sentence of death. A dismissal or denial of a motion relating to insanity
under Section 99-19-57(2), Mississippi Code of 1972, shall be res judicata on the issue
and shall likewise bar any second or successive motions on the issue. Likewise excepted
from this prohibition are those cases in which the prisoner can demonstrate either that there
has been an intervening decision of the Supreme Court of either the State of Mississippi
or the United States which would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his
conviction or sentence or that he has evidence, not reasonably discoverable at the time of
trial, which is of such nature that it would be practically conclusive that had such been
introduced at trial it would have caused a different result in the conviction or sentence.
Likewise excepted are those cases in which the prisoner claims that his sentence has
expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked.
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2000). As stated in the statute, there are exceptions to the second
or successive writ bar. Field asserts none of them in his brief nor do any apply to the case at bar. Lacking
a demonstration that the facts in Field's case are excepted from the procedural bar, the trial court did not
err when it denied relief and dismissed Field's motion.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
