Undre Kimmons a/k/a Andre Marketih Kimmons a/k/a Undrey a/k/a Undre a/k/a Andre Kimmons a/k/a Andre Markeith Kimmons v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-01766-COA UNDRE KIMMONS A/K/A ANDRE MARKETIH KIMMONS A/K/A UNDREY A/K/A UNDRE A/K/A ANDRE KIMMONS A/K/A ANDRE MARKEITH KIMMONS 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 10/01/2013 HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT UNDRE KIMMONS (PRO SE) OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED - 07/15/2014 BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ. LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Undre Kimmons is currently an inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), serving a sentence for cocaine possession under Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2013). Kimmons, who was represented by retained counsel, pleaded guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to serve sixteen years as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2007). Kimmons filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), which was denied by the DeSoto County Circuit Court. ¶2. Kimmons now appeals, asserting that under the requirements of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011), he was denied due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, when he was denied the right to confront the witness who certified his records of prior conviction. Finding that Bullcoming is neither intervening nor applicable to this case, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶3. In his only issue on appeal, Kimmons contends that he was denied due process of law when he was unable to confront the witness who certified his prior-conviction records, in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State used certified copies of Kimmons s prior convictions to prove Kimmons was a habitual offender under section 99-19-81. ¶4. Kimmons relies on the United States Supreme Court s decision in Bullcoming, which he asserts is an intervening decision that is identical to his case. Kimmons was indicted on October 6, 2011, and he entered his guilty plea on September 24, 2012. Bullcoming was decided on June 23, 2011, months before Kimmons was indicted, and well over a year before he entered his plea. Bullcoming is not intervening, and this argument is, therefore, barred. See Lockett v. State, 656 So. 2d 76, 80-81 (Miss. 1995). ¶5. In Bullcoming, the United States Supreme Court, relying on Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), held that the defendant had the right to confront the analyst who certified the blood-alcohol-analysis report, as this report was testimonial under the Confrontation Clause. Bullcoming, 131 S. Ct. at 2713. Unlike Bullcoming, this case does not involve 2 testimonial records, as certified copies of prior convictions are admissible absent confrontation under Frazier v. State, 907 So. 2d 985, 998 (¶43) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005); see also Rainey v. State, 132 So. 3d 1085, 1087 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). This issue is without merit. ¶6. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO DESOTO COUNTY. IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. 3
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.
