Bell v. State
95 So. 3d 760
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bell was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; the conviction's death sentence was later overturned by the US Fifth Circuit.
- The State re-indicted Bell for armed robbery as a habitual offender and Bell pled guilty to that offense, receiving 25 years; Bell's capital-murder sentence remained life.
- Bell filed a post-conviction relief petition in 2010; the Forrest County Circuit Court dismissed it as time-barred under UPCCRA §99-39-5(2).
- Bell appealed, arguing (a) time-bar denial incorrect, (b) illegal sentence, (c) double jeopardy/ex post facto concerns from re-indictment, (d) improper re-sentencing under §99-19-81, and (e) pleading to a previously used charge.
- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the PCR motion time-barred and successive, with an intervening-rights exception addressed but not enabling relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCR was time-barred and subject to UPCCRA procedural bars | Bell asserts exception due to fundamental rights. | State maintains time-bar applies and no exception applies. | No relief; time-bar and succession bar affirmed. |
| Whether Rowland intervening decision creates an exception that salvages Bell’s constitutional claims | Bell contends Rowland exempts his claims from bars. | State argues Rowland does not rescue claims given record facts. | RowlandException acknowledged for rights violations, but record shows voluntary plea; no remedy. |
| Whether re-indictment and guilty plea to armed robbery violated ex post facto or double jeopardy | Bell argues ex post facto and double jeopardy protections were violated by re-indictment and plea. | State contends plea knowingly and voluntarily waived rights; constitutionally permissible. | Claims not sufficient to overcome bars; no reversal. |
| Whether re-sentencing under §99-19-81 (hab._offender) was improper and against public policy | Bell challenges sentencing authority and policy of applying later statute. | State argues lawful re-indictment and habitual-offender sentencing under current statute. | No error; proceedings affirmed as to discharge and sentencing. |
| Whether Bell could plead guilty to a charge previously used to convict him | Bell contends plea created prejudice or improper reuse of prior conviction. | State asserts voluntariness and rights advisory negates prejudice. | Plea valid and voluntary; no relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss.2010) (intervening decision recognizing fundamental-rights exception to UPCCRA bars)
- Bell v. State, 751 So.2d 1035 (Miss.1999) (voluntariness of guilty plea to armed robbery as habitual offender to avoid death penalty)
- Bell v. Watkins, 692 F.2d 999 (5th Cir.1982) (overturned death sentence; discusses re-indictment procedures)
- Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206 (Miss.1978) (initial capital murder conviction and sentence upheld)
- Chandler v. State, 44 So.3d 442 (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (requirements for establishing basis to overcome UPCCRA time-bar)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss.2010) (intervening decision on double jeopardy and UPCCRA exceptions)