Mann v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00989-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-01-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive writ - Time bar - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-19-2010 Appealed from: Leake County Circuit Court Judge: Marcus D. Gordon Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 10-CV-015-A-LE-G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kelly Mann |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY JR. |
|
|
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 - Successive writ - Time bar - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kelly Mann pled guilty to the charges of murder and armed robbery. The trial court sentenced Mann to life for the crime of murder and to a consecutive term of forty years’ imprisonment for the crime of armed robbery. Mann previously filed and was denied post-conviction relief by the trial court on two separate occasions. Mann then filed the present PCR motion seeking to vacate his convictions and sentences, which the trial court denied as a successive writ. Mann appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mann’s present PCR motion constitutes a successive writ. Furthermore, Mann filed his present PCR motion outside of the three-year statute of limitations, as he is currently challenging his guilty pleas which he entered in 1993. Mann argues that he possesses newly discovered evidence that was not reasonably discoverable at the time of trial which was of such nature that it would have caused a different result in his convictions. However, as recognized by the trial court, Mann’s proffer fails to constitute either newly discovered evidence or evidence that would have caused a different result. Thus, he failed to present evidence of facts to satisfy the requirements of the statutory exception for newly discovered evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
