174 So. 3d 299
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Davis pled guilty to manslaughter and possession of a firearm by a felon on August 31, 2010, receiving consecutive sentences totaling 30 years.
- DNA testing of swabs from the crime scene (gun, phone, shoe, other items) excluded Davis as a contributor to those samples; lab results were dated August 27, 2010.
- Davis filed a PCR motion in May 2011 arguing the DNA results were newly discovered exculpatory evidence and that he would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty.
- The trial court denied that PCR, finding the DNA results were available before the plea, did not exculpate him given his recorded confession and plea colloquy, and that issues were waived by the plea.
- Davis filed a second pro se post-conviction petition (treated as a PCR) raising: newly discovered DNA, ineffective assistance for not advising him to wait for DNA, and Brady suppression; the trial court dismissed it as a successive writ.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Davis failed to overcome the successive-writ bar because the DNA was not newly discovered or material, counsel was not shown ineffective, and no Brady violation was proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered DNA evidence | DNA results (dated after events) exclude Davis and would have led him to reject plea and go to trial | Results were available before plea; do not conclusively exonerate because Davis confessed and admitted factual basis in plea colloquy | Denied — DNA not "newly discovered" or material; plea admissions and confession foreclose claim |
| Successive-writ procedural bar | Second PCR should be allowed because of newly discovered evidence and constitutional claims | PCR is successive; exceptions not met because evidence not new/material and no fundamental-rights error shown | Denied — successive-writ bar applies; exceptions not satisfied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to advise waiting for DNA and coerced plea by threatening harsher sentence | Plea was voluntary; defendant chose plea bargain to avoid life without parole; no proof counsel was deficient or prejudicial | Denied — no Strickland showing; claim insufficient to overcome procedural bar |
| Brady (suppression of exculpatory evidence) | State suppressed DNA results favorable to defense | Lab results were available before plea; no evidence of suppression; results were not materially exculpatory | Denied — no suppression shown and DNA not material to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (standard of review for PCR denials and res judicata/successive writ discussion)
- Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (exceptions to successive-writ bar for newly discovered evidence and constitutional errors)
- Bell v. State, 2 So. 3d 747 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (guilty plea negates claim that undiscovered evidence could prove innocence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution suppression of favorable evidence violates due process)
- McCoy v. State, 111 So. 3d 673 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (materiality requirement for newly discovered evidence exception)