David Nichols v. State of Mississippi, 265 So. 3d 1239

In 2004 David Nichols pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and received two life sentences.
Nichols previously filed two PCR motions (denied and affirmed on appeal in 2008 and 2013).
In 2016 Nichols filed a third motion styled as a recusal/change of venue and alleging false evidence, involuntary plea, and ineffective assistance of counsel; he requested an evidentiary hearing.
The initially assigned judge recused; successor judge treated the filing as a third PCR motion and summarily dismissed it without an evidentiary hearing.
The dismissal was appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the motion successive and time-barred and not raising a fundamental-rights exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the filing required recusal/change of venue	Nichols argued the assigned judge had a conflict because he formerly worked for the D.A. and alleged prosecutorial wrongdoing	State argued the judge had no role in Nichols’s prosecution and recusal was unnecessary; replacement judge properly adjudicated the motion	Court found no reversible recusal error; judge had recused and replacement judge lawfully dismissed the motion
Whether the motion was successive under UPCCRA	Nichols raised claims similar to prior PCRs and new allegations he said justified review	State argued the motion was a successive petition barred by prior final judgments	Court held the motion was successive and barred—movant must raise all known claims in initial PCR
Whether the motion was time-barred	Nichols filed ~12.5 years after conviction and argued merits justified tolling	State argued §99-39-5(2) requires PCR within three years after judgment for guilty pleas	Court held Nichols’s petition was untimely and therefore time-barred
Whether any fundamental constitutional-rights exception applied	Nichols asserted constitutional violations (e.g., involuntary plea, ineffective counsel) sufficient to overcome procedural bars	State argued the claims did not implicate the narrow, recognized fundamental-rights exceptions	Court held Nichols did not present a viable fundamental-rights claim to overcome procedural bars

Nichols v. State, 994 So. 2d 236 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (prior appeal from Nichols’s first PCR)
Nichols v. State, 120 So. 3d 433 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior appeal from Nichols’s second PCR)
Pinkney v. State, 192 So. 3d 337 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for summary dismissal of PCR)
Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120 (Miss. 1999) (de novo review of summary dismissal)
Dobbs v. State, 18 So. 3d 295 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (one opportunity for post-conviction relief principle)
Salter v. State, 184 So. 3d 944 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (obligation to present all claims in initial PCR)
Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
Fluker v. State, 170 So. 3d 471 (Miss. 2015) (mere assertion of constitutional violation insufficient to overcome bars)
Evans v. State, 115 So. 3d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (requiring some basis for truth of asserted fundamental-rights violation)
Hampton v. State, 148 So. 3d 1038 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (appellate court will not consider documents not presented to the trial court)