JESS GREEN A/K/A JESS LEE GREEN A/K/A JESS L. GREEN APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 07/25/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. DALE HARKEY
GREEN (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
HOGAN TEDDER ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
In this appeal, we must determine whether the trial court
erred in finding Jess Green's motion for postconviction
relief (PCR) was time-barred and without merit. Finding no
error, we affirm.
On August 4, 2008, in the Jackson County Circuit Court, Green
pleaded guilty in cause number 2007-11, 197 to two counts of
kidnapping and two counts of sexual battery. Green
simultaneously pleaded guilty in cause number 2007-11, 198 to
kidnapping, armed robbery, and attempted sexual battery.
Green was ordered to serve thirty years for each count in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with
the sentences to be served concurrently with each other.
Green filed a PCR motion on July 27, 2015. The trial court
denied Green's PCR motion in part, finding that most of
Green's claims were time-barred and lacked merit.
However, the trial court requested more information from the
State regarding possible trace evidence recovered from one
victim's car and whether this evidence was tested or
capable of being tested. The State responded that no such
evidence was collected. The trial court then denied
Green's remaining claim and dismissed his PCR motion with
Green now appeals, asserting the trial court erred in finding
the following issues were time-barred and/or without merit:
(1) the accuracy of his presentence investigation report
(PSI); (2) the reliability of the DNA results in both cause
numbers; (3) the voluntariness of his guilty plea; (4) the
denial of seventeen additional claims; (5) the denial of his
motion for a default judgment; (6) the denial of his motion
for recusal; and (7) the denial of his motion for appointment
When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a
PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's
decision if the trial court abused its discretion and the
decision is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial
court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard ...