Van Norman v. State
114 So. 3d 799
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Van Norman pled guilty to aggravated assault in 2002 and received a 10-year term.
- In 2010 he filed a PCR motion; after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied relief.
- PCR statute: three-year time-bar in Miss. Code Ann. § 99-89-5(2) with exceptions in § 99-39-5(2).
- Van Norman asserted newly discovered evidence via a 2009 affidavit from Jackson alleging no assault; the affidavit contradicted Jackson’s earlier statements.
- Jackson later testified the affidavit was signed without reading and that he had given earlier statements contrary to the affidavit; witnesses corroborated the shooting.
- The trial court denied the PCR; on appeal, the court reviews factual findings for clear error and upheld the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR was time-barred and whether any statutory exception applies | Van Norman relies on a newly discovered evidence exception. | State contends the time-bar applies and no applicable exception exists. | Time-bar applies; no applicable exception established. |
| Whether newly discovered evidence allows relief | The Jackson affidavit is newly discovered and would have altered the verdict. | Recantation is unreliable and not a basis for a new trial. | Exception not satisfied; no new trial warranted. |
| Whether recanting testimony is credible enough to justify relief | Jackson recanted as true, undermining prior statements. | Recantation is inherently unreliable, especially after long lapse and perjury concerns. | Recantation deemed unreliable; not a basis for PCR relief. |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous | Finding errors would support granting relief. | Findings are supported by substantial and credible evidence. | Findings not clearly erroneous; affirmed the denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callins v. State, 975 So.2d 219 (Miss.2008) (standard for reviewing PCR findings of fact")
- Peeples v. State, 218 So.2d 436 (Miss.1969) (recantation should be treated with suspicion)
- Rushing v. State, 873 So.2d 116 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (weight and credibility of evidence; recantations viewed skeptically)
- Russell v. State, 849 So.2d 95 (Miss.2003) (recantation concerns; perjury considerations)
- Yarborough v. State, 514 So.2d 1215 (Miss.1987) (trial court as sole judge of credibility; reviewing court deferential)
- Hersick v. State, 904 So.2d 116 (Miss.2004) (reaffirmed deferential standard for finding of fact)