Arthur Gardner v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-CP-01999-COA
ARTHUR GARDNER
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
12/03/2009
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ARTHUR GARDNER (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
AFFIRMED - 03/15/2011
EN BANC.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
In December 2005, Arthur Gardner pleaded guilty in the Lowndes County Circuit
Court to one count of sale of cocaine and, under a separate indictment, to one count of
possession of marijuana. The circuit court sentenced him to seven years for each count, all
in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with the sentences to
run concurrently to each other and consecutively to a prior federal sentence, which Gardner
was serving at the time he pleaded guilty in the circuit court. Aggrieved, Gardner filed a
motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), which was summarily denied. He now appeals,
arguing that the circuit court violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) in
accepting his guilty plea. As Mississippi is not a party to the IAD, this issue is meritless, and
we affirm the circuit court’s denial.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
In August 2003, Gardner was indicted on numerous drug charges in the Lowndes
County Circuit Court, including several counts of sale of cocaine and several counts of drug
possession, including possession with intent to distribute. At the time of his indictment,
Gardner was incarcerated in the Yazoo City Federal Correctional Complex, serving time on
a federal sentence. Several months after the indictment, state authorities issued an arrest
warrant for Gardner regarding the drug charges. After Gardner’s arraignment in December
2003, he was returned to federal custody.
¶3.
In December 2005, Gardner pleaded guilty to two of the counts contained in the
August 2003 indictment: one count of sale of cocaine and one count of possession of more
than 250 grams of marijuana. Since Gardner was incarcerated in the Yazoo City Federal
Correctional Complex regarding his federal sentence at the time of his pleading guilty to the
state charges, he was transported to and from the circuit court on numerous occasions
between 2003 and 2005.
¶4.
In 2009, Gardner filed a PCR motion with the circuit court, which was summarily
denied. On appeal, he claims that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty
pleas because his multiple transports to and from a federal institute regarding state charges
violated the IAD.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5.
In reviewing a “lower court’s decision to deny a petition for post[-]conviction relief,
this Court will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly
erroneous.” Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999). However, we will
review questions of law de novo. Id.
DISCUSSION
¶6.
The IAD is an interstate agreement that was enacted in regard to “detainers based on
untried indictments, information, or complaints and difficulties in securing speedy trial of
persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions . . .” and for the purpose of encouraging
“expeditious and orderly disposition of such charges and determination of the proper status
of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints.” 18
U.S.C. App. 2, § 2, Art. I. While most states have become parties to the IAD, to date,
Mississippi has not.
Accordingly, the provisions of the IAD are not applicable to
Mississippi; therefore, this issue is meritless, and we affirm the circuit court’s denial of the
PCR motion.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY
DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., MYERS, BARNES, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, 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.
