213 So. 3d 40
Miss.2016Background
- Kelvin Jordan was convicted of two counts of capital murder in 1996 and sentenced to death on both counts.
- This Court previously affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal and in prior post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings (Jordan I; Jordan II).
- Jordan filed a successive PCR petition in 2015 challenging trial counsel, PCR counsel, proportionality of the death sentence, and trial evidentiary rulings.
- The Court held most claims barred by timeliness, succession, and res judicata; ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel barred because a party cannot challenge counsel who represents him in the same petition.
- Trial-counsel ineffectiveness claims were barred as previously rejected in Jordan II and are subject to the usual procedural bars in capital cases.
- The court denied leave to file a successive PCR petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are trial-counsel ineffectiveness claims barred? | Jordan contends trial counsel were ineffective by not presenting mitigating evidence and experts. | State argues res judicata and prior adjudication prevent relitigation of these claims. | Barred by res judicata and successive-petition rules; previously rejected. |
| Can Jordan pursue ineffectiveness claims of PCR counsel? | Jordan seeks to fault the attorney who represents him in the PCR petition. | Archer rule bars a self-ineffectiveness claim when raised against one's own counsel; imputes lead counsel's performance to all counsel. | Barred; self-ineffectiveness claims not permitted against current counsel in these circumstances. |
| Is the death sentence disproportionate and subject to review? | Proportionality challenges show death penalty is disproportionate. | Court already held death sentences not disproportionate in Jordan I and Jordan II; new challenges barred. | Barred by res judicata; proportionality previously rejected. |
| Do evidentiary rulings at trial remain reviewable? | Jordan raised issues about trial evidentiary rulings. | These issues were previously addressed and rejected; time/successive-barred. | Barred; previously decided and procedurally barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. State, 118 So.3d 118 (Miss. 2013) (ineffectiveness claims barred by res judicata in collateral context)
- Brawner v. State, 166 So.3d 22 (Miss. 2012) (claims previously addressed are procedurally barred)
- Bishop v. State, 882 So.2d 135 (Miss. 2004) (proportionality review barred by prior adjudication)
- Havard v. State, 86 So.3d 896 (Miss. 2012) (time-bar and procedural bars in post-conviction review)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (successive-petition limitations applied)
- Howard v. State, 945 So.2d 326 (Miss. 2006) (reaffirming res judicata and procedural bars in PCR)
- Jackson v. State, 860 So.2d 653 (Miss. 2003) (direct-appeal and PCR issue preclusion)
- Lockett v. State, 614 So.2d 888 (Miss. 1992) (older procedural-bar principles in Mississippi PCR)