Arvin Dale Rochell v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CP-00455-COA
ARVIN DALE ROCHELL
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
2/20/2004
HON. ANDREW K. HOWORTH
CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ARVIN DALE ROCHELL (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY
BENJAMIN F. CREEKMORE
CRIMINAL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED.
AFFIRMED: 03/15/2005
BEFORE KING, C.J., IRVING AND BARNES, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Arvin Dale Rochell has appealed an order denying post-conviction relief entered by the Circuit
Court of Calhoun County, Mississippi. On January 11, 1994, Rochell pled guilty to charges of murder and
arson. On the murder charge, he was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. On the arson charge, Rochell was sentenced to serve a term of
twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, to run concurrently with the
murder sentence.
¶2.
According to Rochell v. State, 748 So. 2d 103 (¶¶1-3) (Miss. 1999), Rochell filed a petition for
post-conviction relief on December 10, 1996, which was denied. In that petition, Rochell alleged that "(1)
his statements to the police were involuntary and should have been suppressed; (2) his constitutional right
to a speedy trial was violated; (3) his convictions for both murder and the underlying felony of arson
constituted double jeopardy; (4) his indictment was defective; (5) his right to effective assistance of counsel
was violated; and, (6) his guilty plea was not voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly entered." An
evidentiary hearing was held on the voluntariness of his plea. At that hearing, the court denied Rochell's
request for relief. On January 23, 2004, Rochell filed another post-conviction relief request, which was
denied as well.
¶3.
On February 26, 2004, Rochell filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 17, 2004, the
trial court entered an order denying Rochell's motion. Rochell now appeals the denial of his requested
relief.
¶4.
Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2000), post-conviction relief
requests are required to be filed within three years after the entry of judgment or conviction. Exceptions
to this three year limitation are: (1) cases in which the prisoner can show that there has been an intervening
decision of the Mississippi or United States Supreme Court which would adversely affect the outcome of
his conviction, (2) cases in which he has new evidence, not discoverable at trial, that would have caused
a different result in conviction or sentence, or (3) cases in which the prisoner claims his sentence has
expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has unlawfully been revoked. The supreme court
has also noted that "errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights, such as the right to a legal sentence,
may be excepted from procedural bars which would otherwise prevent their consideration." Ivy v. State,
731 So. 2d 601 (¶13) (Miss. 1999).
2
¶5.
Rochell has failed to establish that he has met any one of the above exceptions.
¶6.
A person who requests post-conviction relief is obligated to place before the Court all claims
known to him and/or of which he should have had knowledge. Smith v. State, 648 So. 2d 63, 66 (Miss.
1994); Williams v. State, 802 So. 2d 1058 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). The failure to do so results in
a loss of his claims as a second or successive motion. Smith v. State, 500 So. 2d 973, 975 (Miss. 1986).
There are no claims which Rochell attempts to place before this Court, which could not have been included
in the earlier request for post-conviction relief.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CALHOUN COUNTY DENYING
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO CALHOUN COUNTY.
BRIDGES AND LEE, PJJ., IRVING, MYERS, 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.
