I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 0 9 6 1 - CO A KENN ETH BLAK E W ATKI NS A/ K/ A K ENNETH B. W AT KI NS AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 16/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. R O B E R T P
. C H A M B E R L IN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J OH N A
. FERRELL AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : BA RB AR A W AKE L AND B YR D NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : M OTI ON FOR POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF DEN I ED D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 11/ 04/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D JA M E S, JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K enneth W atki ns ar gues the ci r cui t court w r ongl y deni ed hi m pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef ( PC R ) f r om hi s 2010 gui l ty pl eas t o s exual batt ery and f el ony chi l d abus e. W atki ns ent er ed th e se g u ilty p lea s in the m id st o f h is c rim in a l trial fo r ra p in g a six tee n -m o n th -o ld g irl. W h ile W atki ns t ol d the j udge athi s pl ea he ar i ng thathe w as vol unt ar i l y pl eadi ng gui l t y and w as
s at i s f i ed w i th hi s tr i al l aw yer , he now cl ai m s hi s att orney and f ami l y coer ced hi m t o pl ead gui l ty t o avoi d a l i f

e s ent ence . W atki ns al s o now insi st s he has new evi dence thatanother
m a n w a s p re s e n t in th e y o u n g c h ild ’s h o m e w h e n W a tk in s s u p p o s e d ly a s s a u lte d h e r.B ecaus e thi s cas e i nvol ves al l egat i ons of chi l d abus e, the names of t he vi ct i m , her 1 fa m ily , a n d h e r r o o m m a te s h a v e b e e n c h a n g e d to p ro te c t h e r i d e n tity
. 2 ¶2. T he ci r cui tj udge gr ant ed W atki ns a n e vi dent i ary he ar i ng on hi s PC R m ot i on. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, W atki ns ’ s tr i al att orney di s put ed the coe r ci on cl ai m . H e te s t i f i ed thatas the S tate ’s g ra p h ic e v id e n c e u n fo ld e d a t tria l, th e p o ss ib ili ty o f a n a c q u itt a l lo o k e d b lea k . B o th W a tk in s’s fa m ily a n d h is la w y e r fe lt g u ilty p lea s to th e c h a rg e s w e re th e b e st c o u rse to
m inim ize h is po tential sen tenc ing ex p o su re. So w h en o ffered a cap p ed p lea d ea l, W atkin s’s att orney r ecomm ended he pl ead gui l ty. A s t o the s uppos ed new l y di s cover ed evi dence , the
v ictim ’s m o th e r d e n ied e v e r s a y in g a n o th e r m a n w a s p re se n t w h e n W a tk in s a lleg e d ly
a s s a u lte d h e r d a u g h te r. ¶3
. B ase d o n th is te stim o n y
— w h ich th e c ir cu itjud g e fo u n d cre d ible— an d W atkin s’s rep rese n tat ion s d u ri n g h is gu il ty p lea, th e jud g e fo u n d W atkin s fai led to sh o w h is pleas w ere i nvol unt ary orthatnew l y di s cover ed evi dence r equi r ed vaca t i ng hi s gui l ty pl eas . A f t er
r evi ew , w e f

i nd the tr i al j udge di d notcl ear l y erri n m aki ng thes e det erm i nat i ons . W e thus
a ff irm th e d e n ia l o f W a tk in s ’s P C R m o tio n . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory ¶ 4
. In Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 8 , se v e n tee n -y e a r-o ld W a tk in s liv e d in a h o u se in W a lls, M iss iss ip p i,
w i th hi s gi r l f

r i end, T i f

f any, and hers i xt een- m onth- ol d daught erf r om a pr i orr el at i ons hi p, 1 A n n . T w o o th e r r o o m m a te s a ls o liv e d in th e h o u s e
— M a ry a n d M a ry ’s d a u g h te r. ¶5. O n J anuary 25, 2008, T i f f any had a m orni ng comm uni ty- col l ege cl ass , so W atki ns
s t ayed w i th A nn. D ur i ng t hi s t i m e, W atki ns w as t he onl y per s on w i th A nn. W hen Ti f f anyU nderM i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 3- 95( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2014) , “[ a] per s on 2 i s gui l ty of

s exual ba tt ery i f

he ors he engage s i n s exual penetr at i on w i th .
. . [ a] chi l d under the age of

f ourt een ( 14) ye ar s of

a ge, i f the per s on i s tw enty- f

our( 24) orm or e mont hs ol der th a n th e c h ild .” W h ile a n y p e rso n c o n v icte d o f se x u a l b a ttery u n d e r th is s e c tio n w h o is ei ght een ye ar s of

a ge orol ders hal l be s ent ence d t o no l es s than tw enty year s , “[ e] very per s on

. . . convi ct ed of

s exual batt ery w ho i s t hi rt een ( 13) year s of age orol derbutunderei ght een ( 18) year s of

age s hal l be s ent ence d t o s uch i m pr i s onm ent. . . a s the court , i n i t s di s cr et i on, m ay det erm i ne. ” M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 3- 101( 4) ( R ev. 2014)
. B ecaus e W atki ns w as under the age of

ei ght een a tthe t i m e of

the se xual bat t ery, the courthad di s cr et i on i n the l ength of th e s e n te n c e . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -5 -3 9 (R e v . 2 0 1 4 ). 3 3 returned h om e, she t oo k a n ap, and W atkins l eftt o v isi t his m o ther i n H oll y S pri ng s, M is s is s ip p i. ¶6. L at erthate veni ng, Ti f f any f ound bl ood i n A nn’ s di aper , s o s he and M ary t ook A nn t o a hos pi t al
. A nn al s o had brui s es , scr at ches , and abr as i ons on herbody. H ergeni t al ar ea
w a s a lso d a m a g e d . T h e se in ju rie s ra ise d s u sp icio n s a b o u t p o ss ib le s e x u a l as sa u lt an d c h ild
a b u se . A d o c to r an d n u rse p ra c tit io n e r e x a m in e d A n n a n d c o n firm e d sh e h a d v e ry re c e n tly been s exual l y as s aul t ed. ¶7. W atki ns w as l at er char ged w i th one count of s exual batt ery and one count of f el ony 2 chi l d abus e. H i s cas e pr ocee ded t o tr i al i n D eSot o Count y Ci r cui tCourt
. T he St at e puton

3 i t s cas e, cons i s t i ng of det ai l ed t es t i m ony and evi dence of the young chi l d’ s i nj ur i es . T he di s turbi ng evi dence br oughts om e j ur or s t o t ear s . T he S t at e appr oache d W atki ns ’ s tr i al att orney, K entSm i th— w ho unt i l then had been s eton tryi ng the ca s e— and ment i oned a pl ea deal
. Sm i th, havi ng s i zed up the w ay the St at e’ s cas e w as goi ng f orhi s cl i ent , f

el tW atki ns sh o u ld p lea d g u ilty . S m ith re lay e d th e tw e n ty -y e a r re c o m m e n d a tio n to b o th W a tk in s a n d h is4

f ami l y. A nd he couns el ed them aboutw hathe f el tw as a real pos s i bi l i ty of a l i f e s ent ence i f W atki ns w as convi ct ed. W atki ns ’ s fa m i l y al s o concl uded he shoul d pl ead gui l ty and cap hi s s ent enci ng expos ur e. ¶ 8
. T h e n e x t d a y , W a tk in s to ld S m ith h e h a d m a d e u p h is m in d to p lea d g u ilty . S o S m ith f i l ed a pe t i t i on forW atki ns t o ent ergui l ty pl eas t o s exual batt ery and f el ony chi l d abus e. T he
courtthor oughl y ques t i oned W atki ns t o de t erm i ne i f hi s pl eas w er e i ndeed vol unt ary. A nd W a tk in s a g re e d th e y w e re . H e a ls o m a in ta in e d h e w a s s a tis fi e d w ith h is la w y e r’ s e ff o rt s . T h e j u d g e f

o u n d th e r e wa s a f

a c tu a l b a s i s s u p p o rt i n g th e g u i l ty p l e a s a n d a c c e p t e d th e m. He al so accep t ed the Stat e’s plea r ecom m end at i on and sent enced W atkins to tw en ty years’ i m pr i s onm entf

ors exual batt ery. O n the f el ony chi l d- abus e count , the j udge s ent ence d W a tk in s to te n c o n s e c u tiv e y e a rs o f p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n in s te a d o f a p ri s o n te rm . ¶9
. W atkin s l ater fi led a P C R m o ti o n . H e p ri m aril y claim ed h is pleas w ere inv o lun tary and new l y di s cover ed evi dence r equi r ed both pl eas be vaca t ed. A f t erhear i ng f

r om w i tnes s es d u ri n g a P C R h e a ri n g , th e c ir c u it ju d g e d e n ie d W a tk in s ’s p e titio n . W a tk in s a p p e a le d
. D i s c us s i on ¶10. I n cons i der i ng the deni al of a PC R m ot i on, “w e r evi ew t he tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs of f

act f orcl earerr orand i t s det erm i nat i ons of l aw de novo. ” W

ilke rs o n v . S ta te , 89 So. 3d 610, 613 (¶ 7 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 1 ). T h e P C R m o v a n t h a s th e b u rd e n o f sh o w in g h e is e n tit led to
re lie f b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f t h e e v id e n c e . Id
. I . V al i di t y of

G ui l t y P l ea A
. V ol untar i nes s of

P l ea5

¶11. W atki ns ’ s f

i r s tar gum enti s thathi s pl eas w er e i nvol unt ary. H e m ai nt ai ns he onl y pl ed gui l ty becaus e he w as pr es s ur ed t o do s o by hi s att orney and f ami l y. W hen a PC R m ovant tr i es t o getoutof

an al r eady e nt er ed gui l ty pl ea, i ti s the movant , nott he St at e, w ho bear s the b u rd e n o f p ro v in g b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f e v id e n c e th a t th e g u ilty p le a w a s in v o lu n ta ry . See H o u se v . S ta te , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 2 (¶ 2 5 ) (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 23( 7) ( Supp. 2014)
. A nd her e, af t ergr anti ng an ev i dent i ary hear i ng and l i s t eni ng t o the S ta te ’s a n d W a tk in s ' s w itn e s s e s , th e tr ia l ju d g e fo u n d h e fa ile d to m e e t th is b u rd e n .

B
. D et erm i ning i

f a G uil t y P l ea Is Vo l un tary ¶12. ForW atki ns ’ s gui l ty pl eas t o be bi ndi ng, they had t o be vo l un t ary, kn ow i ng , and in te llig e n t. Hill

v . S ta te , 60 So. 3d 824, 828 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011)
. “To det erm i ne
w hetherthe pl ea i s vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y given, the t r i al courtm us tadvi s e the def endantof hi s r i ght s , the natur e of the cha r ge agai ns thi m , as w el l as the cons equenc es of the pl ea. ” D o c ke ry v . S ta te , 96 So. 3d 7 59 , 763 ( ¶17) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( quot i ng B u rr o u g h v . S ta te , 9 So. 3d 368 , 3 73 (¶ 11) ( M i s s . 2009) )
. T he def endantm us tal s o be
a d v is e d th a t a g u ilty p le a w a iv e s v a ri o u s c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts . Hill , 6 0 S o . 3 d at 82 8 (¶1 1 ). B utthe mosts i gni f

i canti ndi cat orof

the vol unt ar i nes s of

a def endant ' s gui l ty pl ea i s “[ t ] he tho r ou gh ne s s w i th whi c h the de f e nd a ntw a s i nt e rr og a t e d b y the l owerc ourt . ” Id
. at( ¶12) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶13. T he r ecor d s how s the ci r cui t j udge t ho rough l y ques t i oned W atki ns dur i ng the pl ea hear i ng. W hen as ked aboutthe pl ea pet i t i on, he sai d he under s t ood i tand t he natur e of the char ges . H e w as al s o aw ar e of the pot ent i al s ent ence s h e faced. A nd he admi tt ed he w asA m ong thes e r i ght s , w hi ch W atki ns acknow l edged he unde r s t ood a nd w as w ai vi ng, 4 w er e hi s r i ght s t o be tr i ed by a j ury, t o have c ouns el atal l s t ages of a tr i al , to be pr es um ed in n o c e n t, t o c o n fro n t w itn e ss e s a g a in st h im , to p re se n t ev id e n c e a n d c a ll w itn e ss e s o n h is behal f , t o r ece i ve a s peedy tr i al , t o appeal the i s s ue of hi s gui l t , and t o as s ertother c o n s titu tio n a l- ri g h ts v io la tio n s . 6 p lea d in g g u ilty b e c a u se h e co m m itt e d b o th crim e s. T h e circ u it ju d g e ca re fu lly in fo rm e d h im
o f th e v a rio u s rig h ts h e w a s w a iv in g b y p lea d in g g u ilty . A n d p e rh a p s m o st d a m a g in g to h is 4 p o inted P C R claim that h is arm w as tw iste d into p lead ing g u il ty w as W atkin s’s sw o rn
r epr es ent at i ons t o the j udge thatno f or ce, pr om i s es , orthr eat s w er e us ed t o gethi m t o pl ead g u ilty . S o th e re c o rd c e rt a in ly c u ts a g a in s t h is in v o lu n ta ri n e s s c la im
.

C
. W atki ns ’s Law

yerW as C or r ect

thatHe C ould G et

Li f e ¶14. W atki ns al s o cl ai m ed he w as t ol d by hi s l aw yert hatt he j udge had a l r eady made up hi s m i nd t o s ent ence hi m t o l i f e i f he r ej ect ed a pl ea deal
. T hi s w as e s s ent i al l y the t es t i m ony of W atki ns , hi s gra ndm other , and cousi n. B utt hati s notw hatW atki ns ’ s m otherand si s t er
re m e m b e re d . B o th h is m o th e r a n d s iste r te stifie d th a t S m ith a d v ise d W a tk in s th a t if h e d id nott ake the pl ea, he could getl i f e i n pri s on— w hi ch w as i ndeed acorr ects t at ementof l aw by hi s tr i al couns el
. Sm i th t oo r emem ber ed t el l i ng W atki ns a nd hi s f ami l y thathe could f

ace l i f e i m pr i s onm ent . B uthe di s agr eed thathe r epr es ent ed t o them t hatthe j udge’ s m i nd w as
a lre a d y m a d e u p , an d if h e re jec ted a c a p p e d p le a , h e w o u ld g e t li fe . A fte r siftin g th is
co m p eti n g ev iden ce , the c ir cu itjud g e fo u n d S m ith an d W atkin s’s m o ther a n d sist er w ere
m or e cr edi bl e than the otherw i tnes s es . B ecaus e the ci r cui tj udge i s the “s ol e author i ty f or determ i ning cr edibi l i ty of the w i tnesses, ” w e defert o h i s cr edibi l i ty d et erm i nati on s. Loden7

v . S ta te , 971 So. 2d 54 8, 5 73 ( ¶59) ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Mu lli n s v . R a tcliff , 515 So. 2d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ))
.

D
. P re ss u re to P lea d G u ilt y ¶15. T hough Sm i th w as hi r ed t o try the cas e af t eranotheratt orney w i thdr ew , w e poi nt out thatonce apl ea of

f erw as m ade, Sm i th had a ge ner al duty t o com m uni cat e the f avor abl e pl ea
o ff e r to W a tk in s . Mis s our iv. Fr ye , 132 S. C t . 1399, 1408 ( 2012)
. A nd he f ol l ow ed thr ough
w i th thi s obl i gat i on. A s Sm i th puti tatthe PC R hear i ng, w hi l e he i nt ended t o try the ca s e, once the St at e ment i oned a de al , he “f el tco m pell ed t o . . . convey the of f er , ” w hi ch he ul t i m at el y r ecomm ended W atki ns t ake be caus e of the w ay the tr i al w as go i ng. T he f act W atki ns f

el ts om e pr es s ur e t o pl ead gui l ty a f t erdi s cus s i ng the of

f erw i th Sm i th i s i ns uf

f i ci ent to r e n d e r a g u ilty p le a in v o lu n ta ry . Se e B ra sin g to n v . S ta te , 76 0 S o. 2d 18 , 26 (¶38) ( M i ss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) (“ A law y e r’s ‘p e rsu a d in g ’ a d e fe n d a n t t o p lea d g u ilty b y ‘ev e ry m e a n s a t h is d ispo sal’ do es n o t r en d er the p lea inv o lun tary if th at pe rsua sion d o e s n o t re su ltfrom fea r,
v io len c e , d e c e p tio n , o r im p ro p e r in d u c e m e n ts.” ); se e a lso Ma y h a n v . S ta te , 26 So. 3d 1072, 1076 ( ¶13) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( “[ T ] he f actthata def

endantpl ed gui l ty becaus e he f ear ed a har s hers ent ence otherw i s e, does notr enderthe pl ea i nvol unt ary. ”)
. H ad the ci r cui tj udge fou n d ev idenc e of ove rr eaching, decep t i on , or i m proper i nd ucem ents on W atkins’ s att o rne y ’s
o r fa m ily ’s p a rt, w e w o u ld lik e ly a g re e w ith W a tk in s’s c laim . B u t th e c irc u it j u d g e d id n o t, and nei therdoes thi s c ourt . T hus , w e cannott amperw i th the j udge’ s f i ndi ng thatW atki ns f ai l ed i n hi s bur den of

pr ovi ng hi s pl ea w as i nvol unt ary. E . Fa c tu a l B a sisT he i ndi ctm entchar ged thaton J anuary 25, 2008, W atki ns di d w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, 5 and f el oni ous l y engage i n s exual penetr at i on w i th A nn, w ho w as atthe t i m e a c hi l d underthe ag e o f fou rt ee n y ea rs, a n d tha t W atkin s w as a t th at t im e a t l ea st tw en ty-fou r m o n ths o r m o re o ld e r th a n A n n , a n d th a t h e e n g a g e d in se x u a l p e n e tra tio n w ith h e r b y in se rtin g a n o b jec t in to the vagi na of

A nn. A s t o countII , on J anuary 25, 2008, W atki ns di d w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, and f el on i ou sl y w hi p, s tr i ke, orotherw i s e abus e orm ut i l at e A nn, w ho i s a chi l d s i xt een m o n th s o f a g e , in a m a n n e r t o c a u s e s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm . T h e S tate p rese n ted testi m o n y from K ri sty (A n n ’s gra n d m o ther); M ary (T if fan y ’s 6 ro o m m a te) ; D r. R o sa G o m e z (a n e m e rg e n c y -r o o m d o c to r a t B a p tist H o sp ital in D e S o to C ounty) ; C andac e C ol eman ( a de t e c t i ve , w ho i nt ervi ew ed w i tnes s es and col l ect ed the bl oody d iap e r); Jo se p h H e ffin (a fo re n sic a n a ly st fro m th e c rim e lab ); K a th ry n M o y se (a S c a les B io L ab em p loy ee , w h o test ed th e d iape r t o co m p are D N A sam p les an d co n fi rm ed th at th e sp erm f ound i n the s emen i n the di aperm at ched W atki ns ’ s ) ; J ul i e A tkei s on ( a nur s e, w ho exami ned 8 ¶16. W e al s o f

i nd ther e w as a s uf

f i ci ent f actual bas i s f

or hi s pl eas . A f

actual bas i s can be
es t abl i s hed by “as t at ementof the pr os ecut or , the t es t i m ony of l i ve w i tnes s es , and pr i or pr ocee dings, [or ] an ac tual admi s s i on by the def endant
. ” B o rd e n v . Sta te , 122 So. 3d 818, 823 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 1 10 S o. 3 d 8 40 , 84 3 (¶17 ) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2013))
. A n i ndi ctm entcan a l s o “be us ed as the s ol e s our ce of the f actual bas i s f

or
a g u ilty p le a ” if

s u ff ic ie n tly s p e c if

ic
. Id
. ( quot i ng D ra ke v. S ta te , 823 S o. 2d 593, 594 ( ¶6) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 )). ¶17. W hen W atki ns opt ed t o pl ead gui l ty af t ert he S t at e rest ed, the j ud ge t ol d hi m the evi dence and t es t i m on y al ready pr es ent ed w oul d be i ncorpor at ed i nt o the pl ea. O n t op of thi s , the i ndi ctm ent w as r ead t o W atki ns dur i ng hi s pl ea he ar i ng, w hich co rr ect l y and 5
s peci f i cal l y char ged both cr i m es . T he pr os ecut oral s o s um m ar i zed the evi dence i n i t s cas ein-ch ief— inclu d ing D N A -relat ed test im o n y that W atkin s’s sem en w as fo u n d in the ch il d ’s d iap er. A n d w h en ask ed by th e jud g e if he w as in fact gu il ty of th e crim es, W a tk in s s a id 6the vi ct i m and phot ogr aphed heri nj ur i es ) ; and D r . K ar en Laki n ( an expe rtt es t i f yi ng i n the fi eld o f ch il d sex u al ab u se). 9 “ y e s , s ir .” ¶18. W hi l e the i nd i ct m enti t s el f w as suf f i ci entt o est abl i s h a fa ctual basi s , t he r emai ni ng
s t at ementof

the pr os ecut or , i ncorpor at ed w i tnes s t es t i m ony, an d W atkin s’s ad m issi o n s w ere
m o re th a n s u ff

ic ie n t to s h o w a fa c tu a l b a s is s u p p o rt in g h is g u ilty p le a s . I I . N ew l y D i s cover ed E vi dence ¶19. W atki ns al s o s ugges t s new l y di s cover ed evi dence r equi r es hi s gui l ty pl eas be vaca t ed. T he St at e’ s cas e hi nged on hi m bei ng the onl y man w i th the young c hi l d w hen s he w as r aped, and W atki ns now cl ai m s he has new evi dence of anotherm al e pr es entatthe house that d a y
— e v id e n c e th a t o n ly c a m e to lig h t a ft e r h e p le d g u ilty
. ¶20. N ew l y di s cover ed evi dence i s “evi dence , not r eas onabl y di s cover abl e at the t i m e of tr i al , w hi ch i s of

s uch natur e thati tw oul d be pr act i cal l y concl us i ve that , i f i thad bee n in tr o d u c e d a t tr ia l, it w o u ld h a v e c a u s e d a d if fe re n t r e s u lt in th e c o n v ic tio n o r s e n te n c e .” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 23( 6) ( Supp. 2014)
. T o pr evai l on a new l y- di s cover ed- evi dence cl ai m , W atki ns had t o s how “evi dence thati s both new l y di s cover ed and mat er i al t o the out com e o f hi s convi ct i ons . ” Mc C o y v . S ta te , 111 So. 3d 673, 676 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ). ¶21. T he sou rce of

t he p urport ed new l y di s cover ed evi dence w as M ary, w ho w as a
r oom m at e of

W atki ns w hen the as s aul thappene d, and the vi ct i m ’ s m other , Ti f f any. A tthe PC R hear i ng, M ary t es t i f i ed thataft er W atki ns had al r eady pl ed gui l ty, T i f f any t ol d her10

anotherm al e w as atthe home thatday. B utT i f f any w as al s o cal l ed att he PC R hear i ng. A nd
s he t ook the s t and and t es t i f i ed s he di d nott el l M ary a notherman w as i n the hom e and ha d
n o id e a w h y M a ry w o u ld s a y th a t. ¶22. W hen as ked i f anyone t ol d her another m al e w as pr es ent or i f s he had know l edge of anotherm al e bei ng pr es ent , Ti f f any s ai d no. A s the ci r cui tj udge not ed, ther e w as s i m pl y “no f i r s th a n d t e s t i mo n y th a ta n y o n e a c tu a l l y s a w a n o th e rp e r s o n a tth e r e s i d e n c e o rth a th i s DNA
w as f ound on the s cene ” on the day of t he cr i m e. T hus w e f

i nd no err ori n the j udge r ej ect i ng W a tk in s ’s “ n e w ly d is c o v e re d e v id e n c e ” c la im
. C oncl usi on ¶2 3
. B e c a u se w e ca n n o t say th e circu itj u d g e clea rl y erred i n fi n d ing W atkin s fa iled to
m e e t h is b u rd e n to p ro v e e n tit lem e n t to p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief, w e a ffirm th e d e n ia l o f h is P C R c la im
. ¶ 2 4
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE DE S OT O C OU NT Y C I RCUI T C OURT DE NYI NG THE M OTI ON FOR POST- CO NVI CTI ON RELI EF I S AFF I RM ED. ALL CO S TS O F T H I S A P P E A L A R E A S S E S S E D T O T H E A P P E L L A N T . LE E, C . J. , IR V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ . , BA R N ES, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, CARL TON, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.