Rodney Fielder v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CP-01614-COA
RODNEY FIELDER
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
7/26/2007
HON. MARCUS D. GORDON
SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RODNEY FIELDER (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER
CIVIL – POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
AFFIRMED - 2/24/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On February 11, 2003, in the Scott County Circuit Court, Rodney Fielder pleaded
guilty to armed robbery. Fielder was sentenced to serve fifteen years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections. Fielder filed a motion for post-conviction relief
alleging improper indictment, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The
trial court denied Fielder’s motion on April 28, 2006.
¶2.
On December 27, 2006, Fielder filed a motion seeking permission to file an out-of-
time appeal. Fielder also asserted that his claim constituted a motion for reconsideration
because of newly discovered evidence, namely a transcript of his guilty plea. This motion
was subsequently denied by the trial court.
¶3.
On April 26, 2007, Fielder filed a motion entitled “Motion for Immediate Release
from the Department of Corrections.” The trial court, treating the motion as one for postconviction relief, denied Fielder’s motion. Fielder now appeals asserting the following
assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief
in light of newly discovered evidence; (2) the trial court erred in finding his guilty plea was
voluntary; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the trial court failed to
discuss the merits of his claims. Finding Fielder’s motion to be a successive writ, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
A trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed absent a finding
that the trial court’s decision was clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148, 1150
(¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of
review is de novo. Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999).
DISCUSSION
¶5.
Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2007), all successive
motions for post-conviction relief are barred if the prisoner has filed a previous postconviction-relief motion. Fielder’s first motion for post-conviction relief was found to be
without merit and dismissed by the trial court. Fielder’s second motion for post-conviction
relief, although not styled as such, was filed on April 26, 2007, and thus was a successive
2
writ. Furthermore, Fielder has failed to point to an exception listed in section 99-39-23(6)
to overcome the successive-writ bar. This issue is without merit.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING
THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS
OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SCOTT COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS
AND CARLTON, 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.
