Esco v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00438-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00438-COA ; 2011-CT-00438-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-12-2012 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Recanted testimony - Exculpatory testimony - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2011 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CI-2010-0261-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ferlando Esco |
ALI MUHAMMAD SHAMSIDDEEN |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LADONNA C. HOLLAND |
|
|
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 - Recanted testimony - Exculpatory testimony - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ferlando Esco was convicted of Count I, aggravated assault; Count II, armed robbery; Count III, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; Count IV, conspiracy to commit armed robbery; Count V, possession of a firearm by a prior convicted felon; and Count VI, felony evasion. Esco appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Esco’s motion for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief in the trial court, specifically limiting the issue to the newly discovered evidence alleged by Esco in his motion. Esco claimed that his codefendant allegedly recanted his testimony provided at Esco’s trial. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on Esco’s claim after which the judge denied Esco’s PCR motion. Esco appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Recanted testimony Esco argues that his co-defendant’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing established that his testimony at Esco’s trial, which implicated Esco in the crimes charged, was fabricated. During the evidentiary hearing, the circuit judge heard testimony from the co-defendant and his defense attorney who represented him during his guilty plea, as well as the prosecutors in Esco’s criminal trial. The Assistant District Attorney testified that both the co-defendant’s guilty plea petition and his testimony at Esco’s trial were corroborated by other evidence in the case, including Esco’s cell phone, which had been recovered and still contained call logs. As a general rule, recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and is regarded with suspicion; and it is the right and duty of the court to deny a new trial where it is not satisfied that such testimony is true. Here, the circuit judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Esco a new trial based on the testimony and evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing. Issue 2: Exculpatory testimony Esco argues that the circuit judge erred in disallowing exculpatory testimony from other witnesses, because he was denied his fundamental right to have witnesses at his hearing. Newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial is evidence 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. Further, the newly discovered evidence must have been facts that existed at the time of trial. Here, the record shows that the witnesses’ statements to the police were provided to the defense counsel during discovery, prior to Esco’s trial. Thus, their testimonies do not constitute newly discovered evidence. Issue 3: Due process Esco argues that the circuit judge violated his due-process rights during the evidentiary hearing on his PCR motion. Esco specifically claims that during the evidentiary hearing, the circuit judge intervened in Esco’s cross-examination of the Assistant District Attorney. Esco cites no authority in support of his argument. Furthermore, the trial court possesses inherent authority to ensure orderly proceedings. Here, the circuit judge interjected simply to clarify the court’s procedure regarding sentencing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
