Jessie Rodgers, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 1999-KP-02011-COA
JESSIE RODGERS, JR. A/K/A JESSE ROGERS, JR.
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT
JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
11/01/1999
HON. JANNIE M. LEWIS
HUMPHREYS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
PRO SE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: BILLY L. GORE
JAMES H. POWELL III
CRIMINAL - FELONY
POSSESSION OF COCAINE: SENTENCED TO THREE
YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC
AFFIRMED - 11/27/01
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
12/18/2001
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND LEE, JJ.
KING, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Jessie Rodgers, Jr. a/k/a Jessie Rogers, Jr. (Rodgers) was found guilty of possession of cocaine by the
Circuit Court of Humphreys County, Mississippi. He was sentenced to serve a term of three years in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Rodgers,
acting pro se, has appealed and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
FACTS
¶2. Jessie Rodgers, Jr. claimed that on February 7, 1998, he was picked up while jogging at 10:00 p.m.,
arrested and taken to jail for no reason at all. However, law enforcement officers claimed that Rodgers fled
from a house located in a high drug traffic area. Officer Randy Blakely of the Humphreys County Sheriff's
Department exited his car and told Rodgers "stop, the police." Officer Blakely testified that several officers
were in the area. When Rodgers did not stop, Officer Blakely called for the other officers and told them
that the subject was running and would not stop.
¶3. The officers pursued him through the dark with flashlights. Officer Blakely found Rodgers lying on his
back in the middle of someone's yard. He advised Rodgers not to move and notified the other officers who
arrived moments thereafter that he had located Rodgers. The officers handcuffed and transported Rodgers
to the county jail for refusing to obey a lawful order to "stop." Upon arrival at the jail, Rodgers was
searched for weapons and contraband. A package of rock-like substances was found in the jacket worn
by Rodgers. Rodgers told the officers that the jacket did not belong to him, that it belonged to someone
called "Mud Bone." The officers also seized $205.33 found on Rodgers. Rodgers was then advised of his
rights and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
¶4. The package was sent to the Mississippi Crime Laboratory where it was tested by a drug analyst and
determined to be 2.6 grams of crack cocaine (approximately 14 rocks). At trial, three witnesses identified
Rodgers as the person wearing the jacket which contained the rock-like substances.
¶5. At the conclusion of the State's case, Rodgers' attorney moved for a directed verdict. He argued to the
court that both the arrest and search were improper. He also argued that there was no evidence of any
effort by Rodgers to sell or transfer any item, which appeared to be contraband, and the charge of
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute was not proven by the State.
¶6. The court found that the State had failed to make a prima facie case of intent to distribute, but had made
a prima facie case of possession and proceeded on the charge of possession of cocaine. The jurors were
instructed by the court on the charge of possession of cocaine. The jurors found Rodgers guilty of
possession of cocaine.
¶7. Because Rodgers had a prior conviction for the sale of cocaine, the court sentenced him to a term of
three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
¶8. On November 23, 1999, a motion for a new trial was filed by Rodgers' attorney. This motion was
denied on November 24, 1999. On December 2, 1999, Rodgers' attorney filed a notice of appeal. On
December 7, 1999, the court directed that the attorney continue representation of Rodgers on appeal.
¶9. On March 24, 2000, a motion to dismiss appeal was filed by Rodgers' attorney. On March 30, 2000,
an order was filed denying this motion because it did not contain:
(1) a certificate of service upon appellee; (2) the appellant's signature or, alternatively, an
accompanying statement signed by the appellant that the effects of dismissal of the appeal are
understood and dismissal is the wish of the appellant; and (3) if the dismissal is upon a written plea
agreement, it is desirable that a signed copy of the agreement be attached to the motion for voluntary
dismissal.
¶10. Thereafter, Rodgers' attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel because Rodgers had requested
to handle this matter pro se. On October 4, 2000, an order dismissing appointed counsel was granted.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
Whether Rodgers received effective assistance of counsel.
¶11. Rodgers contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. This contention is based upon
claims that (1) his attorney did not assist him; (2) his attorney's conduct was unprofessional which led him to
be deprived of his constitutional rights; and (3) his attorney filed a motion to dismiss his appeal without his
knowledge.
¶12. First, Rodgers' claim that his attorney did not assist him does not specifically reveal how the attorney
failed to assist him. While a pro se litigant, Rodgers is nonetheless required to identify with specificity how
his attorney failed to assist him. The absence of such specificity must cause this claim to fail.
¶13. Second, Rodgers contends that his attorney's conduct was unprofessional which led to a deprivation
of his constitutional rights. Rodgers suggests that Angela Shaw, a potential juror, who was related to two of
the State's key witnesses, would prejudice his defense and that his attorney was aware of this. However,
the record reflects that during voir dire by Rodgers' attorney, Mrs. Shaw disclosed information regarding
her familial relationship to two of the officers and was excluded from the jury selected to hear Rodgers'
case.
¶14. As a part of this second claim, Rodgers argues that the failure of his attorney to exclude from the
evidence the package of drugs also deprived him of his constitutional rights. However, the record
demonstrates that the attorney questioned the validity of the arrest and the search. He specifically sought
exclusion of this evidence. That request was denied by the trial judge.
¶15. Where an attorney places before the court a motion for exclusion of evidence which is denied by the
court, that denial, absent extraordinary circumstances, will not be considered to be ineffective assistance of
counsel. DeSalvo v. State, 776 So. 2d 704 (¶28) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶16. Third, Rodgers argues that his attorney filed a motion to dismiss appeal without his knowledge. A
motion to dismiss appeal was filed by Rodgers' attorney. Although the record does not provide the specific
information on this issue, the motion was subsequently denied and Rodgers proceeded with his pro se
appeal. This action had no impact upon Rodgers' conviction.
¶17. To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Rodgers must show (1) a deficiency of
counsel's performance that is (2) sufficient to constitute prejudice to his defense. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Walker v. State, 703 So. 2d 266, 268 (Miss. 1997). The
burden is on Rodgers to demonstrate the Strickland factors to support an ineffective of counsel claim.
McQuarter v. State, 574 So. 2d 685, 687 (Miss. 1990). There has been no showing of deficiency which
would constitute prejudice to Rodgers' defense. We affirm the trial court's decision.
¶18. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HUMPHREYS COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF THREE YEARS IN
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HUMPHREYS COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
