Jones v. State
| Docket Number: | 2003-CP-00847-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00847-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2004 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Successive motion - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Myers, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR Writ of Certiorari: Denied Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-05-2003 Appealed from: Pike County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF MOTIONS DISMISSED District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 02-175-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eric Jones |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DEIRDRE MCCRORY |
|
|
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 motion - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eric Jones pled guilty to murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to life and twenty years. Jones filed a motion to vacate and set aside his conviction which the court denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. Jones filed another motion to vacate and/or set aside his conviction and sentence for armed robbery, and later filed a separate motion for the same relief as to his murder conviction. The court dismissed the motions. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Jones argues that the court abused its discretion by holding that his motions for post-conviction relief were both time-barred and successive motions. An order from the trial court dismissing a prisoner's motion or otherwise denying relief concerning post-conviction relief is a final judgment and shall be a bar to a second or successive motion. Therefore, the trial court’s order serves as a bar to any issues now brought forth by Jones through any successive motion. Jones argues that he had obtained newly discovered evidence. If newly discovered evidence would likely produce a different result and the proponent shows that the evidence was discovered since the plea, that it could not have been discovered before the plea by the exercise of due diligence, that it is material to the issue, and that it is not merely cumulative, or impeaching, then such evidence justifies a successive challenge. The newly discovered evidence produced by Jones is an affidavit from another person. The affidavit does not matter because Jones pled guilty to the crimes. He cannot now profess his innocence on the basis that someone else actually committed one of the crimes. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
