JESS LEE GREEN A/K/A JESS GREEN A/K/A JESS L. GREEN APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 11/02/2017
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
J. WILSON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.
Jess Green appeals from the dismissal of his third motion for
post-conviction relief (PCR). We find no error and affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In January 2008, a Jackson County grand jury charged Jess
Green in two different multi-count indictments arising out of
similar but separate incidents. 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.
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.
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).
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.
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 (¶10) (holding