Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. State

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 14, 2018

MONTRELL JORDAN Petitioner
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Respondent

          ORDER

          MICHAEL K. RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE

         Now before the en banc Court is Montrell Jordan's Application for Leave to File Second Motion for Post-Conviction Relief. The State of Mississippi's response is also before us.

         Jordan filed this, his second, application outside the three-year statute of limitations. He claims trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for three reasons.

         First, Jordan says trial counsel's undisclosed romantic relationship with the State's chief investigator and key trial witness created an actual conflict of interest. Jordan raised this argument in his first application and in federal habeas proceedings. Jordan v. Epps, No. 3:09CV544-DPJ-FKB, 2012 WL 5997046, at **13-15 (S.D.Miss. Aug. 8, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:09CV544-DPJ-FKB, 2012 WL 5997024 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 30, 2012).

          Second, Jordan argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to reversible prosecutorial misconduct. Jordan raised this claim in federal habeas proceedings. Jordan, 2012 WL 5997046, at *16, report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 5997024 (S.D.Miss. Nov. 30, 2012).

         Finally, Jordan asserts appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to cite authority or the record, which resulted in a procedural bar.

         After due consideration, we find the first and second claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Crawford v. State, 218 So.3d 1142, 1152-55, 1161 (Miss. 2016); Gilliard v. State, 614 So.2d 370, 373 (Miss. 1992). Notwithstanding the res judicata bar, we find all three claims are insufficient to surmount the time, waiver, and successive-writs bars. See Bevill v. State, 669 So.2d 14, 17 (Miss. 1996).

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application is denied.

         SO ORDERED.

          TO DENY: RANDOLPH, P.J., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN AND ISHEE, JJ.

          KITCHENS, P.J., OBJECTS TO THE ORDER WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN STATEMENT JOINED BY KING, J.

          WALLER, C.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

         OBJECTING TO THE ORDER WITH ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.