Victor D. Jones v. State of Mississippi
174 So. 3d 902
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Victor D. Jones pled guilty in 2004 to two counts of sexual battery; judge imposed two consecutive 20-year MDOC sentences rather than the State's recommendation (20 years, 10 to serve, remainder probated).
- Jones filed multiple PCR motions: initial PCR (2004) summarily dismissed and affirmed; second PCR (2011) summarily dismissed as time-barred and successive-writ barred and affirmed by appellate courts; Supreme Court in Jones II-MSSC affirmed time-bar/res judicata aspects but reversed on requirement to seek leave to file.
- In August 2013 Jones filed a third PCR challenging counsel effectiveness, voluntariness of plea, competency at plea, failure to inspect discovery, and that the plea agreement was not honored.
- The Pike County Circuit Court summarily dismissed the 2013 PCR as time-barred and a successive writ, noting the motion was substantively identical to prior filings.
- On appeal, Jones raised four issues: (1) time-bar under Miss. Code § 99-39-5(2) despite ineffective-assistance claim; (2) failure to obtain psychiatric competency exam under Miss. Code § 99-31-21; (3) successive-writ bar under § 99-39-23(6); and (4) circuit court jurisdiction under § 99-39-7.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: procedural bars (time-bar and successive/res judicata) applied; competency claim lacked supporting contemporaneous evidence and was previously considered; circuit court had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time-bar under § 99-39-5(2) | Jones: PCR should proceed because counsel was ineffective, which excuses the time-bar | State: Motion filed more than three years after conviction and no statutory exception applies | Affirmed — claims time-barred; prior decisions treated these claims as not excepted from the UPCCRA limitations |
| Competency to plead / failure to order mental evaluation | Jones: He was incompetent/coerced and counsel was ineffective for not moving for a competency exam | State: Record (court and counsel observations) showed no reason to question competency; Jones offered no contemporaneous competency evidence | Affirmed — competency claim without timely or probative evidence is without merit and subject to procedural bars |
| Successive-writ / res judicata under § 99-39-23(6) | Jones: New filing raises claims that overcome successive-writ bar | State: Claims are substantively identical to prior motions and barred by res judicata/successive-writ rule | Affirmed — successive-writ/res judicata bars apply; no qualifying intervening decision or new evidence shown |
| Circuit court jurisdiction under § 99-39-7 | Jones: Court erred in finding lack of jurisdiction | State: Circuit court retained jurisdiction to dismiss on procedural grounds; Jones misreads the order | Affirmed — no reversible error; court had jurisdiction and dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 119 So. 3d 323 (Miss. 2013) (Mississippi Supreme Court decision addressing Jones's prior PCR claims)
- Jones v. State, 119 So. 3d 350 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals opinion on Jones's second PCR)
- Jones v. State, 962 So. 2d 571 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (Court of Appeals opinion on Jones's first PCR)
- Smith v. State, 149 So. 3d 1027 (Miss. 2014) (clarifies treatment of mental-competency claims relative to procedural bars)
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (fundamental-rights exceptions to UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Kirk v. State, 798 So. 2d 345 (Miss. 2000) (holding ineffective-assistance and voluntariness claims are subject to UPCCRA time-bar)