Jordan v. State


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-00914-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-03-2009
Opinion Author: KING, C.J.
Holding: AFFIRMED

Additional Case Information: Topic: Post-conviction relief - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Newly discovered evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ.
Procedural History: PCR
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2008
Appealed from: PONTOTOC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Thomas J. Gardner
Disposition: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED
Case Number: CV07-137(A)

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: RODGER DALE JORDAN




WILLIAM WAYNE HOUSLEY



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • Appellee: STATE OF MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS  

    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 - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Voluntariness of plea - Newly discovered evidence

    Summary of the Facts: Rodger Jordan filed a petition for post-conviction relief to set aside his conviction and sentence for statutory rape. The court denied the petition, and Jordan appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Ineffective assistance of counsel Jordan argues that defense counsel coerced and cajoled him to enter a guilty plea as his counsel unprepared for trial. Jordan provides no evidence to support his allegation that counsel was unprepared. Clearly, Jordan failed to meet the burden of proof that defense counsel’s performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced his defense. During his plea hearing, Jordan stated that he had not been promised anything, coerced, or threatened by anyone into entering his plea and that he was satisfied with counsel’s performance. Thus, his claim is without merit. Issue 2: Voluntariness of plea Jordan argues that his plea was involuntary because defense counsel coerced and manipulated him into a guilty plea with the assurance that his case could be heard on appeal. Despite the advice or instructions an attorney gives his client, if the trial court is thorough in its questioning and explanation to the defendant regarding his rights and the consequences of his plea, then such discussion is sufficient to render a plea voluntary. Even if Jordan was misled by counsel, the trial court’s explanation that by entering a guilty plea Jordan forfeited his right to appeal was sufficient to negate any misinformation. Additionally, Jordan acknowledged that he understood that by entering a guilty plea he was admitting to the facts as read from the indictment. Issue 3: Newly discovered evidence Jordan argues that during hearings on the pretrial motions, evidence was revealed that would require the vacation of his guilty plea and that because he was not given an opportunity to conduct interviews of new witnesses or investigate new leads that became available the day prior to trial, his guilty plea should be set aside. The new evidence, which Jordan alleged was material to his defense, was the testimony of two witnesses, who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with the victim, and affidavits from the victim’s schoolmates and friends which alleged the same. Any newly discovered material evidence must be sufficient to result in a different result or induce a different verdict. The new evidence does not negate Jordan’s acknowledgment of sexual intercourse with the victim.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court