Earnest Jefferson, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-CP-00809-COA
EARNEST JEFFERSON, JR.
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
03/26/2008
HON. JAMES LAMAR ROBERTS, JR.
LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
EARNEST JEFFERSON, JR. (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED
AFFIRMED - 08/18/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Earnest Jefferson, Jr., pled guilty to two charges of selling cocaine. Jefferson filed an
unsuccessful motion for post-conviction relief in August 2007. Jefferson later filed a
“petition for reduction of sentence.” The Lee County Circuit Court treated Jefferson’s
petition as a motion for post-conviction relief and summarily denied it based on the
prohibition against successive motions for post-conviction relief. Aggrieved, Jefferson
appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
The record contains two documents titled “statement of facts” prepared by an
undercover agent with the North Mississippi Narcotics Unit.1
According to the first
statement of facts, on June 22, 2006, the undercover agent and a confidential informant went
to Jefferson’s house, where the confidential informant gave Jefferson $100 in exchange for
four “large rocks of crack cocaine.” According to the second statement of facts, on July 12,
2006, the same undercover agent and the same confidential informant again went to
Jefferson’s house.
Similar to the first transaction with Jefferson, the agent and the
confidential informant gave Jefferson $100 in exchange for “six rocks and some crumbs of
crack cocaine.”
¶3.
On October 20, 2006, a Lee County grand jury returned an indictment against
Jefferson incident to the June 2006 transaction. That cause, designated as CR06-727,
charged Jefferson with selling cocaine in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section
41-29-139(a) (Rev. 2005). The grand jury also returned an indictment against Jefferson
incident to the July 2006 transaction.
Consequently, Jefferson was charged in two
indictments with selling cocaine in violation of section 41-29-139(a).
¶4.
On May 7, 2007, Jefferson pled guilty to both charges of selling cocaine. Pursuant
to the prosecution’s recommendation, the circuit court sentenced Jefferson to two sentences
1
“The North Mississippi Narcotics Unit (NMNU) is a multi-jurisdictional narcotics
task force charged with the responsibility of enforcing the criminal laws of the State of
Mississippi regarding controlled substances. The Tupelo Police Department is the host
agency for the NMNU.” http://www.ci.tupelo.ms.us/police/divisions/NM_narc_unit.htm
(last visited on June 16, 2009).
2
of twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with fifteen years
suspended and five years to serve followed by five years of post-release supervision on each
sentence.
¶5.
On August 23, 2007, Jefferson filed a motion for post-conviction relief. Jefferson
claimed that: (1) he pled guilty involuntarily and unknowingly; (2) he received ineffective
assistance of counsel; and (3) the circuit court’s sentence was excessive. On November 15,
2007, the circuit court summarily denied Jefferson’s motion for post-conviction relief.
¶6.
On March 24, 2008, Jefferson filed a document styled as a “petition for reduction of
sentence.” Jefferson requested that the circuit court “consider the sentence originally
imposed and . . . reduce the sentence to levels which are more representative of [the]
rehabilitative goals of the criminal justice system.” Two days later, the circuit court entered
an order. The circuit court stated that it considered Jefferson’s petition for reduction of
sentence as a motion for post-conviction relief. The circuit court then found that Jefferson’s
motion was procedurally barred pursuant to the statutory prohibition against successive writs.
Consequently, the circuit court summarily denied Jefferson’s motion. Jefferson appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7.
In reviewing a circuit court's decision to deny a motion for post-conviction relief, we
will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Boyd
v. State, 926 So. 2d 233, 235 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). However, we review questions of
law de novo. Id.
ANALYSIS
¶8.
On appeal, Jefferson argues that he was not guilty of either count of selling cocaine.
3
Additionally, Jefferson claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Jefferson
is procedurally barred from raising those issues for two reasons. First, Jefferson did not raise
those issues in his petition for reduction of sentence. Failure to raise an issue before the
circuit court renders that issue procedurally barred on appeal. Wortham v. State, 952 So. 2d
968, 972 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). Second, the circuit court properly treated Jefferson’s
petition for reduction of sentence as a motion for post-conviction relief. Jefferson had filed
a motion for post-conviction relief before he filed his petition for reduction of sentence.
Successive motions for post-conviction relief are prohibited by Mississippi Code Annotated
section 99-39-23(6) (Supp. 2008).
¶9.
Having found that Jefferson is procedurally barred due to his failure to raise his
arguments in his petition for reduction of sentence and procedurally barred by the prohibition
against successive writs, we find no error in the circuit court’s decision to summarily deny
Jefferson’s petition for reduction of sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
circuit court.
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING THE
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF
THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
