Ford v. State, 121 So. 3d 325

Ford was convicted in 1997 of conspiracy to commit robbery, armed robbery, and felon in possession; received consecutive sentences of 5, 40, and 3 years; convictions affirmed in 1999.
In 2010, Ford filed a PCR motion for a new trial based on two affidavits from codefendant McCullough recanting trial testimony; hearing scheduled but McCullough failed to appear.
Ford moved for the trial judge’s recusal in June 2011; the judge denied the recusal; counsel was appointed for Ford’s PCR matter.
A second PCR hearing was set for March 2012; McCullough again did not appear; the court continued the matter until he could be located.
Ford filed a rebuttal in April 2012, which the court treated as a withdrawal of the indefinite continuance; on July 26, 2012, the court denied the PCR; appeal followed.
The appellate court noted Ford’s recusal motion was untimely under Rule 1.15 and cited Esco v. State for the no-error standard in denying PCR recusal

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal of the trial judge in PCR	Ford argues bias from sentencing remarks	Ford contends judge was biased and should recuse	Recusal denied; no manifest abuse of discretion
Newly discovered evidence in PCR	Ford sought relief based on McCullough recantations	State argues issue abandoned on appeal	Issue abandoned; not considered on appeal

King v. State, 821 So.2d 864 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (objective recusal standard; burden on challenger to show prejudice)
Fulks v. State, 110 So.3d 764 (Miss. 2013) (no manifest error in denying recusal based on trial judge’s remarks)
Shumpert v. State, 983 So.2d 1074 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (no manifest error in recusal denial; lack of demonstrated prejudice)
Johnson v. State, 70 So.3d 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for PCR denials; de novo for law)
Esco v. State, 102 So.3d 1209 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (affirmed denial of PCR recusal; timely recusal issues context)