Roach v. State
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00162-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00162-COA ; 2011-CT-00162-SCT ; 2011-CT-00162-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Lee, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Newly discovered evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Russell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Maxwell, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-16-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm Harrison Disposition: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF Case Number: 251-10-809 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jimmie Roach a/k/a Jimmie C. Roach a/k/a Jimmy Roach |
JANE E. TUCKER |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER |
|
|
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 - Newly discovered evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmie Roach was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession of hydromorphone. Roach was sentenced as a habitual offender and ordered to serve forty-eight years on the cocaine-possession charge and sixty years on the hydromorphone-possession charge. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court. Roach received permission to file a motion for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the trial court denied Roach’s motion for post-conviction relief. Roach appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Roach contends a juror overheard two law enforcement officers discussing Roach’s possible sentence during a recess in Roach’s trial. The juror contends he heard the officers stating Roach could get five to eight years in prison if convicted and that this may have influenced his vote. However, Tate did admit the evidence produced during trial indicated Roach’s guilt. Upon questioning by the trial court, Tate admitted he voted guilty because the evidence was sufficient to convict Roach. Tate also stated he would have found Roach guilty regardless of what he may have heard the two officers saying. Newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial must be evidence that 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. Based on the record, the trial court did not err in denying Roach’s request for relief, noting that the juror had given as many as five versions as to what occurred the day he purportedly overheard the two officers. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
