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.

Green v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

October 1, 2019

JESS LEE GREEN A/K/A JESS GREEN A/K/A JESS L. GREEN APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2017

          COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DALE HARKEY

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JESS LEE GREEN (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE

          BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

          J. WILSON, P.J.

         ¶1. Jess Green appeals from the dismissal of his third motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). We find no error and affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. In January 2008, a Jackson County grand jury charged Jess Green in two different multi-count indictments arising out of similar but separate incidents.[1] In cause number 2007-11, 197(3), he was charged with two counts of kidnaping, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of armed robbery. In cause number 2007-11, 198(1), he was charged with one count of kidnaping, one count of armed robbery, and one count of attempted sexual battery. In August 2008, Green pled guilty to all charges in both indictments. The circuit court accepted Green's plea and sentenced him to serve thirty years in the custody of the Department of Corrections on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.

         ¶3. Green has since filed three PCR motions. In 2015, he filed a PCR motion challenging all of his convictions under both indictments. Green alleged, among other things, that DNA evidence from his case should be subjected to additional testing because the original tests were unreliable. Green v. State, 242 So.3d 176, 179 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied, 246 So.3d 68 (Miss. 2018). The circuit court denied the motion, and we affirmed. Id. at 178 (¶1). As to Green's DNA claim, we held that "Green . . . failed to show how a different testing method would produce more probative results than the method originally used." Id. at 179 (¶10). Therefore, we held that his claim was not excepted from the three-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Post-Conviction and Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). Id. (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015)).

         ¶4. In 2016, while his first appeal was pending, Green filed a second PCR motion. His second motion raised some of the same claims as his first motion but only addressed his convictions in cause number 2007-11, 198(1). The circuit court denied the motion, and we affirmed. Green, 2019 WL 667866, at *1 (¶1). We held that Green's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the UPCCRA's bar on successive PCR motions. Id. at *2 (¶¶10-12); see Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015) (providing that an order denying a PCR motion "shall be a bar to a second or successive [PCR] motion"). We also held that the doctrine of res judicata barred Green's claims because he had raised the same claims in his first PCR motion. Green, 2019 WL 667866, at *2 (¶10).

         ¶5. Green's third PCR motion, which he filed in 2017, is the subject of this appeal. His third motion addresses only his convictions in cause number 2007-11, 197(3). In this motion, Green again asserts that DNA evidence from his case could be subjected to additional testing and that "such additional testing would provide a reasonable likelihood of more probative results." Green attached several documents to his motion, including a letter addressed to him from an expert in DNA analysis. The expert advised Green that the original DNA testing in his case was still considered "reliable" and capable of identifying a DNA "match 'to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.'" The circuit court denied Green's motion, holding that it was barred by the statute of limitations, the bar on successive PCR motions, and the doctrine of res judicata. Green appealed.

         ANALYSIS

         ¶6. The circuit court properly dismissed Green's third PCR motion. Green's only claim in this appeal-that DNA evidence should be subjected to additional testing-is the exact same claim that this Court rejected just two years ago. Therefore, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Green, 2019 WL 667866, at *2 (ΒΆ10) (holding ...


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.