Kelvin D. Ashford v. State of Mississippi, 233 So. 3d 765

Victim N.W. (first abused at age 6 by another person) testified Ashford, her aunt’s long-term on‑again/off‑again partner, began sexually abusing her at age 9 and continued intermittently through age 14, describing numerous acts including vaginal intercourse and oral sex.
N.W. disclosed the abuse in May 2012 at age 14 after leaving a note for her mother; hospital testing diagnosed trichomoniasis (an STD transmitted sexually).
Ashford denied sexual contact with N.W.; he gave a recorded interview to police and later testified, claiming intermittent residence with various family members and girlfriends and denying the allegations.
The jury convicted Ashford on eight counts of sexual battery and two counts of fondling; the court sentenced him to multiple terms (primarily 20 years) with some concurrent and one consecutive five‑year term.
Post‑trial Ashford sought JNOV/new trial based on alleged Facebook posts recanting N.W.’s testimony and other social‑media/text evidence; the court subpoenaed social‑media pages, reviewed produced pages, and ultimately denied the new‑trial/JNOV motions and rejected claims of newly discovered perjury.
On appeal Ashford raised (1) trial‑court handling of post‑trial evidence, (2) legal sufficiency, (3) weight of the evidence, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ashford)	Held
1. Trial court’s consideration of post‑trial evidence	Court properly considered materials produced before the deadline and hearings; it did not abuse discretion	Court abused discretion by cutting off Facebook/recantation evidence at sentencing and not fully hearing argument	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court acted within scheduling order and considered available evidence
2. Sufficiency of evidence	N.W.’s detailed testimony, prior statement, and STD diagnosis support convictions	Insufficient proof of penetration and of sexual acts when victim was 14 for certain counts	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could convict
3. Weight of the evidence	Credibility issues were for the jury; evidence does not overwhelmingly contradict verdict	Verdict against overwhelming weight given alleged inconsistencies, witnesses, and alternate explanations	Affirmed: no unconscionable injustice; credibility determinations for jury
4. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel’s strategic choices (subpoenas vs. warrant, evidence timing, cross‑examination) were reasonable; no prejudice shown	Counsel failed to obtain Facebook/search warrants, failed to present work‑history evidence timely, elicited damaging testimony	Affirmed: presumption of competence not rebutted; Strickland prongs not met

Moore v. State, 508 So. 2d 666 (Miss. 1987) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (factors required to obtain new trial when perjury or recantation alleged)
Brooks v. State, 203 So. 3d 1134 (Miss. 2016) (legal‑sufficiency standard reviewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
Bateman v. State, 125 So. 3d 616 (Miss. 2013) (slight penetration suffices for sexual battery)
Kirk v. State, 160 So. 3d 685 (Miss. 2015) (standard for reviewing weight‑of‑the‑evidence challenges)
Williams v. State, 757 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 1999) (credibility and jury’s role in weighing witness testimony)
Puckett v. State, 879 So. 2d 920 (Miss. 2004) (Strickland framework cited for ineffective assistance)
Wilson v. State, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016) (presumption of counsel competence and burden to show deficiency)
Liddell v. State, 7 So. 3d 217 (Miss. 2009) (strategic decisions by counsel presumed reasonable)
Bowie v. Montfort Jones Mem’l Hosp., 861 So. 2d 1037 (Miss. 2003) (courts may enforce deadlines; analogy to scheduling orders)