State v. Bass
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01059-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-01059-COA2006-CT-01059-SCT2006-CT-01059-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 10-09-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-05-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Procedural bar - Newly discovered evidence - Brady violations - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cumulative error - Evidentiary exhibits Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-14-2006 Appealed from: Bolivar County Circuit Court Judge: Al Smith Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF GRANTED Case Number: 2005-0038 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
||
| Appellee: | JIMMY BASS | MERRIDA COXWELL, EMILY MAW |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Procedural bar - Newly discovered evidence - Brady violations - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Cumulative error - Evidentiary exhibits |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmy Bass and Markius Thomas were found guilty of aggravated assault and armed robbery. Bass and Thomas received sentences of twenty years for aggravated assault and thirty years for the armed robbery to be served consecutively. Bass and Thomas appealed their convictions and sentences. The supreme court affirmed Bass’s conviction. The supreme court granted Bass leave to proceed in the trial court with a motion for post-conviction relief. Upon receipt of the motion, the trial court denied the relief sought, and Bass appealed. The supreme court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Bass filed a second application for leave to proceed in the trial court with a motion for post-conviction relief. After a thorough hearing on the matter, the supreme court granted Bass’s request for leave to proceed. After discovery had been completed, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The trial court granted Bass’s motion for post-conviction relief, vacated his convictions, and ordered a new trial. The State appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Procedural bar The State argues that the Bass’s motion for post-conviction relief was timed-barred and successive-writ-barred. While this was Bass’s second motion for post-conviction relief and it was filed sixteen years after his conviction, Bass received permission from the supreme court to bring this motion for post-conviction relief at the trial court. Further, the supreme court had a lengthy hearing on the matter as evidenced by the parties’ statements made during oral arguments. The supreme court must have found that the petition on its face was not procedurally barred. In light of the broad order of the supreme court, the cases, and section 99-39-27(5), the trial court was correct in addressing all of the issues in Bass’s motion for post-conviction relief. Issue 2: Newly discovered evidence Regardless of the procedural bars discussed, newly discovered evidence can overcome the successive-writ and time bar. Newly discovered evidence is that which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence at the time of trial, as well as being almost certainly conclusive that it would cause a different result. The majority of the newly discovered evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing dealt with a trial witness who had recanted his testimony from the trial, been diagnosed with a mental illness, was determined to be a police informant, and was on juvenile parole at the time he gave a statement to the police. The other newly discovered evidence involved a witness who received a reward for testifying and the statement provided to police before the trial was contradicted by two witnesses. During the trial, only these two witnesses were able to conclusively link Bass to the robbery. Without their testimony, it is quite conclusive that the result of the trial would have been different. Issue 3: Brady violations Since the trial court found that a new trial was warranted even without a Brady violation, there is no need for the Court to address whether the State committed any Brady violations. Issue 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel The basis for this claim of error comes from the statement in the trial court’s order that trial counsel failed to interview two witnesses that would have provided favorable testimony to Bass’s case. The State argues that this issue is barred by res judicata since ineffective assistance of counsel was directly addressed in Bass’s first motion for post-conviction relief. While Bass’s trial counsel did state during the evidentiary hearing that he performed no other investigation of the case other than reading the State’s discovery, the trial court did not find that Bass received ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, it is not necessary to address whether the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is barred by res judicata. Issue 5: Cumulative error The State argues that the court was in error when it held that the evidence as a whole required a new trial, essentially finding cumulative error. The order referenced Bass’s numerous allegations of newly discovered evidence. While one specific piece of evidence may not warrant relief, all the newly discovered evidence taken together requires a new trial. Issue 6: Evidentiary exhibits The State argues that the trial court erred when it allowed Bass to introduce fifty different exhibits into evidence without laying a proper foundation. The trial court admitted all the exhibits at one time in an effort to speed the process of the hearing. Since the State is unable to specifically point to any prejudicial exhibit and the trial court is deemed to be able to ignore inadmissible and irrelevant evidence, this issue is without merit. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
