ANDRE J. JONES APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 10/06/2017
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON. DAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANDRE J. JONES (PRO SE).
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
LISA L. BLOUNT.
IRVING, P.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...