C.D. PICKLE JR. A/K/A CLANTON D. PICKLE JR. A/K/A C.D. PICKLE APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/2018
LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. HON. RICHARD A. SMITH TRIAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: C.D. PICKLE JR. (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY L. GORE
BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
C.D. Pickle Jr. appeals the Leflore County Circuit
Court's dismissal of his motion for post-conviction
relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
"The procedural history associated with this case is
quite extensive, as Pickle has filed numerous motions before
the circuit court." Pickle v. State, 203 So.3d
753, 755 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). This Court has
summarized the procedural history as follows:
In 1975, a Holmes County grand jury indicted Pickle for the
capital murder of Mary Elizabeth Harthcock. The indictment
charged that, on November 26, 1974, Pickle raped Harthcock
and then killed her. A jury subsequently convicted Pickle and
sentenced him to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court
reversed Pickle's conviction in 1977 and remanded the
case for a new trial. Pickle v. State, 345 So.2d
623, 624 (Miss. 1977). His second trial was held in the
Leflore County Circuit Court in 1978, where he was convicted
again and sentenced to life in the custody of the MDOC. The
record reflects that Pickle failed to perfect a direct appeal
from that conviction.
At some point between March or April 1978 and December 1981,
Pickle petitioned the circuit court for permission to file an
out-of-time appeal from his conviction, which the circuit
court denied. On review, the Mississippi Supreme Court
ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Pickle
had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal.
After the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court determined
that Pickle had properly waived his right to appeal and,
thus, again denied Pickle's request for an out-of-time
appeal. The supreme court affirmed the denial in March 1982.
Pickle v. State, 791 So.2d 204, 205 (¶4) (Miss.
In September 1997, Pickle filed a PCR motion again seeking an
out-of-time appeal from his 1978 conviction and sentence. The
circuit court denied the motion, explaining that it had
already determined Pickle had knowingly and intelligently
waived his right to appeal and that Pickle had raised no
other issues that would entitle him to an out-of-time appeal.
On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the circuit court's
decision and held that Pickle was collaterally estopped from
seeking an out-of-time appeal because the issue of his
entitlement to an out-of-time appeal had been adjudicated
sixteen years before. In June 2004, Pickle filed another PCR
motion in the circuit court, arguing that in his 1978 trial,
the judge erroneously instructed the jury, and that his
counsel was ineffective. Pickle further argued that he was
innocent. The circuit court dismissed Pickle's PCR motion
as time-barred and as successive-writ barred. The circuit
court further held that Pickle was collaterally estopped from
filing the PCR motion since the issue of his entitlement to
an out-of-time appeal had already been determined. This Court
affirmed the circuit court's decision in May 2006.
Pickle v. State, 942 So.2d 243, 247 (¶14)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Pickle then petitioned the supreme
court for a writ of certiorari, which the court denied on
November 20, 2006.
In June 2009, Pickle filed [another PCR motion]. On August
19, 2009, the circuit court denied and summarily dismissed
all motions filed by Pickle. The circuit court barred Pickle
from bringing any other action regarding his incarceration,
either in federal or state court, absent immediate danger or
physical injury. Pickle appealed. On appeal, this Court
affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Pickle's
PCR motion and determination that the PCR motion was
frivolous. Pickle v. State, 64 So.3d 1009, 1012
(¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).
Significantly, the prior dismissals of Pickle's
petitions, as set forth above, relied on the premise that no
other issues would entitle him to relief under Mississippi
Code Annotated section 99-39-5. Since that time, section
99-39-5 was amended to establish relief by providing an
exception for DNA testing in cases where such testing and
technology were not available at the time of trial. On
September 15, 2011, Pickle filed another PCR motion wherein
he claimed insufficient evidence existed to support his
capital-murder conviction, and for the first time, requested
DNA testing of the biological evidence collected during the
murder investigation. ...