336 So.3d 1146
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2015 Dekerrius Ford and co-defendant Jeremiah Hair left an Office Depot with a TV and accessories; employees said Hair displayed a handgun, causing them not to intervene. A grand jury indicted both for armed robbery.
- In 2016 Ford entered an Alford (best-interest) plea to armed robbery, admitted participation but claimed he acted under duress; the court found his story not credible and sentenced him to twenty years (fifteen to serve).
- In 2017 Ford (through counsel) filed a PCR motion asserting a newly discovered, exculpatory 911 recording (purportedly of Sean Jackson) that he said the State failed to disclose; the court denied that motion and Ford did not appeal.
- Hair later faced trial and was convicted only of shoplifting; his sentencing record indicates a lesser outcome than an armed-robbery conviction.
- Ford filed a second, pro se PCR motion in 2018 repeating the recording claim; the circuit court dismissed it as an impermissible successive motion and denied an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Ford failed to prove an exception to the statutory bar on successive PCR motions and that speedy-trial protections do not apply to collateral post-conviction proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford’s second PCR is barred as a successive motion under §99-39-23(6). | Ford: the 911 recording is newly discovered evidence excepting his motion from the bar. | State: Ford’s prior PCR denial is final; Ford cannot show an applicable exception. | Affirmed — motion barred; dismissal proper. |
| Whether the 911 recording is “practically conclusive” newly discovered evidence that would have changed the result. | Ford: recording contradicts robbery narrative and would have altered his decision to plead. | State: Ford failed to put the recording into the appellate record or show it would have been conclusive. | Denied — Ford failed to meet the burden to show it was practically conclusive. |
| Whether the 911 recording was reasonably discoverable before Ford’s plea. | Ford: State failed to disclose the recording in discovery. | State: Hair obtained the recording, and Ford offered no reason he could not have obtained it pre-plea. | Denied — Ford did not show the recording was not reasonably discoverable. |
| Whether Ford was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and whether speedy-trial protections apply to PCR proceedings. | Ford: requested hearing and complained of delay in disposition and record preparation. | State: motion procedurally barred; speedy-trial protections apply only to criminal trials, not collateral relief. | Denied — no hearing required; speedy-trial claim inapplicable to post-conviction proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (court may accept a guilty plea even if defendant maintains innocence when plea is voluntary and has a factual basis)
- Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016) (speedy-trial guarantee does not apply to post-conviction proceedings)
- Chancy v. State, 938 So. 2d 251 (Miss. 2006) (newly discovered-evidence exception can apply to defendants who pleaded guilty)
- Crawford v. State, 192 So. 3d 905 (Miss. 2015) (substantial appellate delays rarely constitute reversible error; speedy appeal denial not per se reversible)
- Badger v. State, 290 So. 3d 377 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (movant bears burden to prove an exception to the successive-PCR bar)
- Porter v. State, 281 So. 3d 935 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (circuit court may dismiss a PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing if procedurally deficient)