Pittman v. State
121 So. 3d 253
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pittman was convicted by an Alcorn County Circuit Court jury on three counts of sexual battery and two counts of statutory rape.
- This Court affirmed the sexual-battery convictions and reversed and rendered the statutory-rape convictions; certiorari denied by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 2003.
- Pittman filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion on July 5, 2007, which the circuit court denied as time-barred; on appeal, this Court reversed, holding the motion was not time-barred (Pittman II).
- In the PCR motion Pittman alleged newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The court analyzed newly discovered evidence under four elements and found Pittman failed to meet them; it also rejected Pittman’s claims of ineffective assistance as trial strategy decisions or lacking proof of prejudice.
- The court held there is no automatic right to an evidentiary hearing in PCR matters; the circuit court has discretion, and Pittman’s asserted issues did not require an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR denial on time-bar and evidentiary hearing was proper | Pittman contends newly discovered evidence and ineffectiveness warranted an evidentiary hearing. | State argues no error in denying relief; evidence failed to meet requirements for new trial or necessitate a hearing. | PCR denial affirmed; no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether the newly discovered evidence met the Meeks criteria | New herpes-related evidence undermines trial evidence and shows due diligence issues. | Evidence is impeachment at best and could have been discovered earlier; not legally sufficient for new trial. | Not met; evidence insufficient for newly discovered evidence relief. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective | Counsel violated duties by failing to call alibi witnesses, cross-examine, and pursue defenses. | Claims fall within trial strategy and lack specific showing of prejudice. | No merit; ineffective assistance failed to show prejudice or deficient performance. |
| Whether Pittman was entitled to an evidentiary hearing | Contested material facts justify an evidentiary hearing. | Evidence does not present material contested facts affecting outcome. | No automatic right to hearing; none of the issues warrant one. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meeks v. State, 781 So.2d 109 (Miss. 2001) (four elements required for newly discovered evidence)
- Frierson v. State, 812 So.2d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for newly discovered evidence in PCR appeals)
- Hunt v. State, 877 So.2d 503 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (due diligence for discovery of evidence; impeachment caveat)
- Porter v. State, 963 So.2d 1225 (Miss. 2008) (no automatic right to an evidentiary hearing in PCR)
- Meeks v. State, 781 So.2d 109 (Miss. 2001) (Meeks rule cited for evidentiary hearing standards)
- Moore v. State, 986 So.2d 928 (Miss. 2008) (factual findings review in PCR cases)
- Johnson v. State, 39 So.3d 963 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (four-element test for newly discovered evidence)