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.

Jones v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

December 11, 2018

ANDRE J. JONES APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/06/2017

          JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON. DAL WILLIAMSON.

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANDRE J. JONES (PRO SE).

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA L. BLOUNT.

          BEFORE IRVING, P.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.

          TINDELL, J.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶1. A Jones County jury found Andre Jones guilty of murder, and the circuit court sentenced Jones to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The Mississippi Supreme Court confirmed Jones's conviction and sentence in Jones v. State, 39 So.3d 860, 868 (¶42) (Miss. 2010). Since then, Jones has filed six applications with the supreme court requesting leave to file a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion with the circuit court. The supreme court denied the first application on April 4, 2011. The supreme court dismissed five subsequent applications as untimely or successive.

         ¶2. Nine years after his conviction, Jones filed a "Motion for Production of Biological Evidence" with the circuit court on October 6, 2017, and requested the State produce: (1) inventory of biological evidence preserved in connection with his criminal case; (2) any results of reports or scientific tests or experiments connected with that evidence; and (3) certified copies of any results from the testing, analysis, or comparison of any biological evidence. The circuit court considered Jones's motion to be a PCR motion. Because the supreme court affirmed Jones's conviction on direct appeal, and Jones failed to obtain leave to file a PCR motion, the circuit court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider Jones's motion. The circuit court therefore dismissed the motion.

         ¶3. On appeal, Jones asserts the circuit court erred (1) in treating his motion as a PCR filing and (2) by dismissing his motion for lack of jurisdiction. Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of Jones's motion.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶4. We decline to reverse a circuit court's dismissal of a PCR motion unless the circuit court's decision was clearly erroneous. Thompson v. State, 10 So.3d 525, 527 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). We review issues of law de novo. Id.

         DISCUSSION

         ¶5. Jones filed a motion with the circuit court for the production of biological evidence that was used in connection with his conviction. He is not challenging his conviction or sentence, just the dismissal of his motion for production. The supreme court has held that "pleadings cognizable under the Uniform Post Conviction Collateral Relief Act [(UPCCRA)] will be treated as . . . motions for [PCR] that are subject to the procedural rules promulgated therein, regardless of how the plaintiff has denominated or characterized the pleadings." May v. State, 116 So.3d 1107, 1109 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Knox v. State, 75 So.3d 1030, 1035 (¶12) (Miss. 2011)). In May, May filed a motion with the circuit court requesting the production of documents from his court proceeding. Id. at 1108 (¶3). The circuit court interpreted May's motion as a PCR motion and dismissed it. Id. Similar to May, Jones's motion for the production of biological evidence is subject to the UPCCRA's procedural rules. Though titled a motion for the production of biological ...


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.