Pickle v. State
115 So. 3d 896
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- C.D. Pickle Jr. was tried twice (1975–78) for capital murder (rape and killing of Mary Harthcock); after a 1978 conviction he was sentenced to life and did not perfect a direct appeal.
- Pickle repeatedly sought post-conviction relief and an out-of-time appeal; courts previously denied relief and found he had knowingly waived appeal rights or was collaterally estopped from relitigating entitlement to an out-of-time appeal.
- In 2009 the Legislature amended the UPCCRA to create a statutory exception to the three-year PCR time bar for cases where untested (or newly testable) biological evidence could, by DNA testing, probably show the petitioner would not have been convicted or would have received a lesser sentence.
- In September 2011 Pickle filed a PCR motion seeking DNA testing of semen evidence from the 1974/1978 investigation and invoked the 2009 DNA-testing exception to the statute of limitations.
- The Leflore County circuit court summarily dismissed Pickle’s 2011 PCR motion as time‑barred and successive‑writ barred without holding an evidentiary hearing; Pickle appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Pickle meets the statutory DNA-testing exception and thus is exempt from the three‑year time bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pickle’s 2011 PCR motion is time‑barred under UPCCRA § 99‑39‑5(2) | Pickle: his motion invokes the 2009 DNA‑testing exception to the 3‑year limit because biological evidence was never tested and DNA testing could probably show he wouldn’t have been convicted | State: PCR is time‑barred and successive‑writ barred; prior dismissals preclude relief | Court: Reversed dismissal; remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine if DNA exception applies |
| Whether successive‑writ/previous collateral rulings bar Pickle’s PCR motion | Pickle: exception for DNA testing defeats procedural bars and prior collateral estoppel does not foreclose new DNA‑based claim | State: prior rulings and successive‑writ doctrine preclude relitigation | Court: Did not affirm bar; ordered hearing to assess statutory exception before applying bars |
| Whether summary dismissal was appropriate without an evidentiary hearing on the DNA claim | Pickle: circuit court should have held a hearing to evaluate available biological evidence and testing potential | State: dismissal appropriate based on prior procedural rulings | Held: Summary dismissal was improper; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether DNA testing request met statutory standard to demonstrate reasonable probability of different outcome | Pickle: existing trial testimony shows semen was present; modern testing likely exculpatory | State: argued procedural bars first; merits not resolved | Court: Left the merits undecided and directed trial court to hold hearing to decide this factual issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickle v. State, 345 So.2d 623 (Miss. 1977) (earlier reversal of first trial)
- Pickle v. State, 791 So.2d 204 (Miss. 2001) (prior denial of out‑of‑time appeal and collateral estoppel on appeal‑waiver issue)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental constitutional errors excepted from UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Diggs v. State, 46 So.3d 361 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for summary dismissal of PCR motions)