Melvin Lee Cardwell a/k/a Melvin L. Cardwell v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: September 9, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CP-01088-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-CP-01088-COA

MELVIN LEE CARDWELL A/K/A MELVIN L. APPELLANT CARDWELL

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/28/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KENT E. SMITH COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MELVIN LEE CARDWELL (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/09/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND McCARTY, JJ.

McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A criminal defendant’s second petition for post-conviction relief was denied by a trial

court as a successive writ. Finding no error, we affirm.

¶2. In 2021, a Calhoun County grand jury issued a 21-count indictment against Melvin

Lee Cardwell. Three counts were for the sexual battery of a child. Two counts charged him

with child exploitation for possessing a cell phone and a thumb-sized memory stick

containing images of child sexual-abuse material. The remaining sixteen counts were for

exploitation of the child by photographing her engaging in sexual conduct. Cardwell pled

guilty to all counts.

¶3. During the guilty plea hearing, Cardwell testified that his attorney conferred with him and that he was satisfied with the legal advice he had received. He admitted he had

committed the conduct alleged in his indictment. He was later sentenced at a subsequent

hearing.

¶4. At sentencing, the defendant’s mother and father asked the trial court for leniency.

Cardwell then took the stand and addressed the victim’s family, stating, “I can never ask y’all

for y’all’s forgiveness for what I have done to y’all. I know I deserve a lot worse, but I pray

that y’all show me leniency.”

¶5. While on the stand, he confessed he became sexually attracted to the child when she

was around 8 years old. He also admitted to committing sexual acts on the child and

photographing her over a three-year period. He further admitted to having 498 images of

child sexual-abuse material on the thumb drive and 338 images of CSAM on the cell phone.1

¶6. The trial court sentenced Cardwell to serve a term of 10 years, suspended, for the

possession of the phone and 10 years, suspended, for possession of the thumb drive; 40 years

for the three counts of sexual battery, with none suspended; and 40 years for the remaining

counts of possession of the images, suspended. His time to serve for the three counts of

sexual battery was subsequently reduced to 30 years in custody.

¶7. Less than two years later, on August 28, 2023, Cardwell filed a handwritten pleading

titled “Motion for Post-Conviction Relief.” The clerk for the Calhoun County Circuit Court

correctly scratched out the handwritten caption associated with Cardwell’s criminal matter

1 While not the focus of the indictment or the plea, Cardwell disclosed that when he was 15 years old, he had also taken photos of another child. Cardwell was 27 at the time of his plea.

2 and opened a new civil matter, placing it on the docket. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7

(Rev. 2020) (“The motion under this article shall be filed as an original civil action in the

trial court”).

¶8. In the PCR petition, Cardwell claimed his Miranda rights were violated, he was

denied effective assistance of counsel, and other constitutional violations. He argued he was

not properly Mirandized prior to an interview and alleged his “lawyer never looked into the

matter or asked me anything related to the [State] never reading me my Miranda rights.” He

also argued that his lawyer “told me I was indicted but I never received any indictment

papers” and that he was never shown them either.

¶9. The trial court found that Cardwell’s guilty plea belied the arguments in his PCR

petition and denied relief.

¶10. Then in August 2024, about a year after his first petition, Cardwell sought post-

conviction relief for a second time. This time he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel

for his lawyer’s failure to file a motion to suppress his statement to authorities, again arguing

a violation of Miranda.

¶11. The trial court determined that Cardwell had previously sought post-conviction relief

and been denied. Accordingly, the trial court found his 2024 PCR attempt to be procedurally

barred as “a successive motion[.]”2 Cardwell appealed.

2 The trial court relied upon the order from Cardwell’s first PCR file in reaching this decision. Per the Rules of Civil Procedure, that order was required to be included in the record of this case. See MRCP 54(c) (“When a court summarily dismisses a motion for post-conviction collateral relief . . . the order must identify the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence the court relied on and direct that certified copies of those documents be placed in the motion cause number’s file”) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, we may take

3 ¶12. The purpose of our PCR statutes “is to provide prisoners with a procedure, limited in

nature, to review those objections, defenses, claims, questions, issues or errors which in

practical reality could not be or should not have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.”

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3 (Rev. 2020) (emphasis added). Crucially, “any order dismissing

the petitioner’s motion or otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and

shall be conclusive until reversed.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2020). A

dismissal or a denial of a PCR “shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this

article.” Id.; see also Hyland v. State, 401 So. 3d 1056, 1059 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024)

(finding that a PCR motion was properly dismissed as successive when it was “his second

PCR motion”).

¶13. Cardwell’s 2024 petition is the second time he has sought post-conviction relief. Per

the statute, because his previous request for post-conviction relief was denied, any successive

petition is barred. “Moreover, [Cardwell] has not demonstrated that any statutory exception

applies” to overcome the bar. Hyland, 401 So. 3d at 1059 (¶11); see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-

39-5(2) (listing the statutory exceptions to the successive-writ bar). Therefore, the trial court

was correct in classifying Cardwell’s second petition as successive and rejecting it as barred

by law.

¶14. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,

judicial review of a filing on a court docket. See Badger v. State, 290 So. 3d 377, 381 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (collecting cases acknowledging that this Court can take judicial notice of a filings on a docket). Cardwell attached the order denying relief as an excerpt to his brief, and it is likewise retrievable via MEC.

4 McDONALD, LAWRENCE, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.