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 4 8 4 - CO A J EF F RE Y HOLM AN 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 : 03/ 06/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OSE P H H. LOP ER J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATT ALA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: M
. J UD I TH B AR NETT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD 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 : 09/ 09/ 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 G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. FAI R, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. J ef

f r ey H ol m an was c on vi c t e d of a r med r obber y i n 2008. H i s convi ct i on w as af f i r m ed on a ppeal
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our tgr ant ed H ol m an perm i s s i on t o see k pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

i n the tr i al court , w hi ch he di d, cont endi ng thathi s tr i al couns el had col l uded w i th the att orney f oro ne of his accus er s . A f t eran evi dent i ary hear i ng, the tr i al
courtf ound H ol m an’ s cl ai m s f actual l y bas el es s and deni ed hi s PC R pet i t i on. W e f i nd t hat th e trial c o u rt a c ted w ith in its d isc re tio n in re so lv in g c o n flic tin g tes tim o n y a n d th a t it s d e c i s i o n i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e a f f i r m.

### 2 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶2. W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a PC R m ot i on, an appel l at e court “w i l l not di s turb t he tr i al court ’ s fa ctual fi ndi ngs unl es s t hey ar e f ound t o be cl ear l y err oneous . ” C a lli n s v . S ta te , 9 7 5 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 (¶8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 3
. H o lm a n w a s c o n v ic te d o n th e th e o ry th a t h e a s s is te d a n o th e r m a n , G e o rg e D o ts o n J r., in ro b b in g a c o n v e n ien c e sto re . H o lm a n ’s d e fe n se w a s D o tso n h a d fo rc e d h im to h e lp w ith th e ro b b e ry . D o tso n p led g u ilty sh o rtly b e fo re H o lm a n ’s tria l. ¶4
. H o lm a n ’s a tto rne y at tri al w as R icha rd C arter III
. C arter w as a p a rt-tim e p u b lic def ender , and H ol m an’ s w as the f i r s tf el ony cas e he had tr i ed. R os al i nd J or dan w as the other part - t i m e publ i c def

enderi n A t t al a C ounty; she w as m or e exper i ence d. Jor dan r epr es ent ed D ot s on, w ho t es t i f

i ed agai ns tH ol m an i n the l att er ’ s tr i al
. H ol m an al l eged i n hi s PC R m ot i on that Jo rda n assisted C arter i n the tri al an d that C arter ha d reli ed o n h er a d v ice, t o H o lm an ’s detr i m ent . H ol m an cont ended thatboth D ot s on and J or dan had i ti n f orhi m ; al l egedl y, D ot s on had cal l ed H ol m an a sni t ch and del i ght ed i n hi s pr os ecut i on, and a w i tnes s cl ai m ed t o have ove rhear d J or dan s ay s he w ant ed t o s ee H ol m an convi ct ed. ¶5. A t the evi dent i ary hear i ng on H ol m an’ s PC R m ot i on, C art er t es t i f i ed that he di d not
r emem bers peaki ng t o J or dan aboutH ol m an’ s c as e. J or dan admi t t ed s he w as pr es enti n t he
c o u rtro o m fo r so m e o f th e trial, b u t s h e s tr e n u o u sly d e n ied th a t sh e h a d c o llab o ra ted w ith C art eron the ca s e; s he admi t t ed onl y thatshe m ay have exc hanged pl eas antr i es w i th hi m t hat d a y in th e c o u rt ro o m .

### 3

¶6. O n the other s i de of the coi n, H olm an t est i f i ed that he per s onal l y w i tnes s ed C ar t er t aki ng di r ect i on f

r om J ordan a bouthi s cas e dur i ng j ury s el ect i on. A notherw i tnes s , H ap A n d e rso n , tes tified th a t h e sa w C a rte r a n d J o rd a n s p e a k in g a n d th a t C a rte r h a d to ld h im J or dan hel ped w i th t he j ury sel ect i on. T he af f i davi tof a thi r d w i tnes s , M i ke H ut chi s on, w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence
. H ut chi ns on, a f or m ers her i f

f , s t at ed thatCar t erha d de cl i ned hi s of f er t o hel p pi ck the j ury. I ns t ead, he obs erved C art erand Jordan revi ew i ng the j ury l i s t s , and ther e w as “no mi s t aki ng” thatthey w er e col l abor at i ng on j ury s el ect i on. ¶7. T he tr i al courtcons i der ed al l of the above evi dence a nd e xpl i ci t l y f ound thatC ar t er and J or dan’ s t es t i m ony w as m or e cr edi bl e. A f t ert aki ng s om e t i m e t o del i ber at e, the j udge
announce d hi s rul i ng f

r om the benc h. H e ac cur at el y s um m ar i zed the t est i m ony w e have
r ecount ed above , and then hel d: [ W ] her e t her e’ s a conf

l i cti n the t es t i m ony, the C our thas t o r es ol ve [ i t . ] H er e, J o rd a n h a s n o re a s o n to o ff e r a n y te s tim o n y th a t w o u ld n o t b e tru th fu l. [O ]n th e o th e r h a n d , this C o u rt b e liev e s H o lm a n h a s e v e ry re a so n in th e w o rld to t es t i f y i n the manneri n w hi ch he di d. T he C our tw i l l al s o not e thatA nder s on and H ut chi ns on, both of t ho se i ndi vi dual s dur i ng the tr i al s ever al year s ago, w er e def ens e w i tnes s es and o ffe re d g lo w in g c h a ra c ter a ss e ss m e n ts o f M r. H o lm a n . In fa c t, i n th e a ffid a v it thatM r . A nder s on f

i l ed, he eve n s t at ed thathe c ons i der ed H ol m an t o be l i ke on e of hi s ow n k i ds. So .
. . M r s . J or dan i s t he onl y w i tnes s w ho has no i nt er es ti n the out come of th e p ro c e e d in g s. S h e ’s n o t alig n e d in a n y w a y o r sh a p e o r a n y fa sh io n w ith anyone i nvol ved i n thi s cas e. So f orthatr eas on, the C our tf i nds hert es t i m ony t o be more cr edi bl e than that thats ays otherw i s e. M rs. Jo rda n d id n o t assisto r he lp M r. C arter i n an y w ay d u ri n g the ju ry

### 4

s el ect i on in the arm ed r obbery tr i al
. Si nce s he di d nothel p oras s i s ti n any w ay, the C our tf

i nds thatther e w oul d be no conf l i ctof i nt er es ts i nce s he ac t ed i n no capac i ty as couns el forM r . H ol m an. A nd[ , ] ther ef or e, he i s notent i t l ed t o any r el i ef

on thi s i s s ue. T h e c o u rtalso rejected H o lm an ’s i n effec ti v e assi st ance o f counsel cl ai m ch all en g ing C arter’s
over al l r epr es ent at i on attr i al
. A l though H ol m an obvi ous l y d oes notagr ee, he has not d ire c tly c o n tes ted th a t d e c isio n o n a p p e a l. ¶ 8
. H o lm a n d e v o tes n e a rly a ll o f h is b rie f o n a p p e a l to a ttem p tin g to sh o w th a t h e w o u ld b e e n ti tl ed to a n ew tr ial if the tri al co u rth ad ac ce p ted h is ve rsi o n o f th e fa cts. H o w ev er, b ec au se th e c o u rtb eli ev ed Jo rda n ’s t esti m o n y , that q u esti o n is m o o t; o n ap p ea l, w e a re
r equi r ed t o def

ert o the tr i al court ’ s f

i ndi ngs of

f act . “[ T ] he tr i al j udge, s i t t i ng i n a benc h tr i al
as t he t r i erof f

act , has s ol e author i ty fordet erm i ni ng cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es . ” Johns v. S ta te , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 (¶2 9 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶9. T he onl y chal l enge H ol m an m akes t o the tr i al c our t ’ s f actual f i ndi ngs i s hi s cont ent i on thatJ or dan’ s t es t i m ony s houl d be di s count ed beca us e, w hen as ked w hy s he w as s o s ur e about herconductthatday, J or dan s t at ed: “I t ’ s j us tnots om ethi ng I w oul d have done , cons i der i ng th e fa c t th a t m y c lie n t, M r. D o ts o n , w a s g o in g to b e te s ti f y in g a g a in s t M r. H o lm a n .” A ccor di ng t o H ol m an, thi s i s a n a dm i s s i on thatJ or dan di d notr emem berthe event s and w as j us tt es t i f

yi ng as t o w hatshe be l i eved s he w oul d have done
. I n cont ext , thatdoes notappea r to b e w h at she actu all y said. F u rth erm o re, a rev iew ing co u rt“m u st ex am ine th e e n ti re rec o rd and ac ceptthatevi dence w hi ch s uppor t s orr eas onabl y t ends t o s uppor tthe f i ndi ngs of

f act
m ade be l ow , t ogetherw i th al l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s w hi ch may be dr aw n ther ef r om and

### 5

w hi ch f avorthe l ow erc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act . ” Id
. (cit ati o n a n d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶10. A f

t err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe tr i al courtact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on
as the f i nderof f actw hen i tf

avor ed J or dan and C art er ’ s t es t i m ony ove rthatof H ol m an and hi s w i tnes s es . T he tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs ar e notcl ear l y er roneous and i t s j udgm entcannot b e d istu rb e d o n a p p e a l. ¶ 1 1
. THE J UDG M ENT OF TH E C I RC UI T C OU RT OF ATTALA CO UNTY DENYI NG THE M OTI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S AFF I RM ED. ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO TH E APP ELLANT. LE E, C . J. , I R 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, CAR LTON, M AXW ELL A N D J A M E S , J J ., C O N C U R .