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 - CP - 0 1 0 8 8 - CO A I N T HE M AT T E R O F T HE RE M OV AL OF AZ ALEAN RO GERS A/ K/ A AZ ALEAN J ON ES F RO M T HE B OA RD OF AL DE RMEN OF T HE CI TY OF BOYL E, M I S S I S S I P P I : AZ AL EA N ROGERS AP P EL LA NT

v. S T AT E OF M I S S I S S I P P I , OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y G E NE RA L , HON . J I M HOO D APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 31/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E
. W EBSTER CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: AZA LEAN RO GER S ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE YS 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 : ALI SON ELI ZAB ETH O ’ NEA L H A R O L D E D W A R D P IZ Z E T T A III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : RO GER S AD J UD I CA TED A CO NV I CTED F E L ON AND P RO HI BI T E D F RO M RUNNI NG FOR OF F I CE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 11/ 18/ 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: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO . 2 0 1 3 - CP - 0 1 1 8 4 - CO A AZ AL EA N ROGER S A/ K/A AZ AL EA N J ONES AP P EL LA NT
v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 06/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J OHN NI E E
. W ALL S J R.

### The State arg ues that there fus alto rem ove Rogers from of fi cewas er

rone ous. It 1 

### re ques ts that t

his Court re ver sethat a spe ct

of the jud gment on a

ppeal, but t

hat is sueis not bef oreus be ca

use only Roger s ha s a

ppeale d; no c ros s- appe alwas fi le d by theState . More ver , the i ss ue i s m oot be ca useRoger s i s no l onger

in of fi ce . 2 COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: BOLI VAR COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: AZA LEAN RO GER S ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE YS 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 : ALI SON ELI ZAB ETH O ’ NEA L H A R O L D E D W A R D P IZ Z E T T A III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: DE NI E D M OT I ON F OR E XP UNGE M E NT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 11/ 18/ 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. , F A I R A N D JA M E S, JJ. FAI R, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he A t t orney G ener al f i l ed a pet i t i on t o r emove A zal ean R og ers f r om the B oar d of A l derm en of

the C i ty of

B oyl e, M i s s i s s i ppi , al l egi ng thats he had pl ed gui l ty t o tw o f el ony
c o u n ts o f fo rg e ry in 1 9 7 9 . T h e tria l c o u rt a d ju d ica ted R o g e rs to b e a c o n v icte d fe lo n , b u t it d en ied th e p eti ti o n to rem o v e h er from o ffi ce an d instead en tered an o rde r fi n d ing that R o g ers
w as n o t a qu ali fi ed elec tor an d co u ld n o t ha v e h er n am e p lace d o n the b all o t i n futu re el ect i ons . R oger s appea l s , pr o s e, f r om thatj udgm ent . She al s o appea l s the deni al of her 1
ow n m ot i on t o exp un ge t he convi ct i ons , w hi ch w as a s epar at e ca us e hea r d by a di f f er ent j u d g e i n t h e s a me c i r c u i t . W e a f f i rm b o th j u d g me n t s b e c a u s e Ro g e r s h a s n o ts h o wn
r ever s i bl e err ori n ei thercas e. DI S CU S S I ON ¶2. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed sect i on 25 -5- 1 (R ev. 20 10 ) s t at es:

### 3

I f any publ i c of

f i cer , s t at e, di s tr i ct , county orm uni ci pal , shal l be convi ct ed or ent era pl ea of

gui l ty ornol o cont ender e i n any courtof thi s s t at e orany other s t at e o r i n any f

eder al courtof

any f el ony otherthan mansl aught erorany vi ol at i on of

the U ni t ed St at es I nt ernal R evenue C ode, of corrupt i on i n of

f i ce orpecul at i on ther ei n, orof gambl i ng ordeal i ng i n f utur es w i th m oney comi ng t o hi s hands by vi r tue of hi s of f i ce, any courtof

thi s s t at e, i n addi t i on t o s uch otherpuni s hm entas m ay be pr es cr i bed, s hal l adj udge the def endantr emoved from o ffi ce ; and the o ffi ce o f th e d efe n d an t sha ll there b y b ec o m e v ac an t. If any s uch of

f i cerbe f ound by i nques tt o be of uns ound m i nd dur i ng the t erm f or w hi ch he w as el ect ed orappoi nt ed, ors hal l be r emoved f r om o f f i ce by the j udgm entof a courtof

compet entj ur i s di ct i on orotherw i s e l aw f ul l y, hi s of

f i ce s hal l ther eby be va cat ed; and i n any s uch ca s e the vac ancy s hal l be f i l l ed as p r o v i d e d b y l a w. W hen any suc h off

i ceri s found gui l ty of a cr i m e w hi ch i s a f el ony underthe l aw s of thi s s t at e orw hi ch i s puni s habl e by i m pr i s onm entf orone ( 1) yearor m or e, ot he rtha n man s l a ug ht e rora ny vi ol a t i on of the U ni t e d St a t e s I nt e rna l R evenue C ode, i n a f

ederal co urtora courtof compet entj ur i s di ct i on of any o th e r sta te, th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l o f th e S tat e o f M iss iss ip p i sh a ll p ro m p tly e n tera m o tio n fo r re m o v a l fro m o ffic e in th e circ u it co u rt o f H in d s C o u n ty in th e c a se o f a sta te o ffic e r, an d in th e c irc u it c o u rt o f th e c o u n ty o f re sid e n c e in th e c a se o f a d istric t, c o u n ty o r m u n icip a l o ffic e r. T h e c o u rt, o r th e ju d g e in vaca t i on, s hal l , upon not i ce and a pr operhear i ng, i s s ue an or derr emovi ng s uch p e r s o n f r o m o f f i c e a n d th e v a c a n c y s h a l l b e f i l l e d a s p r o v i d e d b y l a w. S i m i l arl y, A rt i cl e 12 , S ect i on 24 1 o f the M i ssi ssi pp i C on st i tuti on st at es: E very i nhabi t antof

thi s s t at e, exce pti di ot s and i ns ane pe r s ons , w ho i s a ci t i zen of the U ni t ed St at es of

A m er i ca, ei ght een ( 18) year s ol d and upw ar d, w ho has b e e n a re sid e n t o f th is s tate fo r o n e (1 ) y e a r, an d fo r o n e (1 ) y e a r in th e c o u n ty in w h ich h e o ffe rs to v o te, a n d fo r six (6 ) m o n th s in th e e lec tio n p re c in c t o r in th e in c o rp o ra ted c ity o r to w n in w h ic h h e o ffe rs to v o te, a n d w h o is d u ly r egi s t er ed as pr ovi ded i n thi s art i cl e, and w ho has neve rbeen convi cted of m urder, rape, bri bery, theft , ars on , ob t ai ning m on ey o r good s und er f al se p re te n s e , p e rj u ry , f

orgery , embezzl ementorbi gamy, i s decl ar ed t o be a qual i f i ed el ect or , exce ptthathe s hal l be qual i f i ed t o vo t e f

orPr es i dentand V i ce Pr es i dentof

the U ni t ed St at es i f

he m eet s t he r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed by C o n g ress the refo r an d is othe rw ise a q u ali fi ed elec tor. I n or dert o have one ’ s name pl ace d on the bal l ot , s he mustbe a q uali fi ed el ect or , and s he
c a n n o t b e a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 3 -15 -29 9 (7) (S u p p . 2 0 1 4 ).

### It s re citati on of the judgm ent

a dds that thesentencein num ber 5582 shallbe s er

ved 2 

### conc urrently to theone in number 5581. Also, the docke t she et for number 5582 doe s not ind icate that a tran script w as filed, andit has what ap pears to be a scriv ener’s erro r – d itto marks for theyear

of Rogers ’s disc harge, indic ating 1979. Rogers , theprobati on off ic er , and the o ther d ock et sheet all statedit was in19 81
. 4 ¶3. T her e w as a factual dis pu t e about w hether R oger s i s a convi ct ed f el on beca us e the files a n d m in u te b o o k p a g e s fro m b o th o f h e r c o n v ictio n s a re m iss in g . T h e B o liv a r C o u n ty C i r cui tC l erk cannotexpl ai n w hy. ¶4. O nl y the do cket sheet s r emai n. I n r el evant part the docket s heet f or caus e number 5581 st at es t haton N ovember14, 1979, A zal ean J ones ( R oger s ’ s m ai den name) w as i ndi ct ed f o rf o r g e ry . I ts h o ws th a ts i x d a y s l a t e r , s h e wa s a r r a i g n e d a n d a p p o i n t e d a n a t t o rn e y . On D ece m ber18 of

the s ame year , a docke tentry s t at es ( r epr oduced a s i tapp ear s i n the h an d w ri tt en o ri g inal): Ju d g m en t & sen tenc e fi led o n plea of gu il ty sen tenc ed to se rve three (3) y ea rs i n an i nst i tuti on un de r the supervi si on & con trol of M S D ept of C orr ect i on s. S en t ence su spend ed for three ( 3) years & placed on probati on , pay al l co u rt cos t s , m ake f

ul l r es t i tut i on t o vi ct i m , pa y $10 permont h s upervi s i on f ee t o M S D ept of C orr ect i on s, reportt o P robat i on O ff i cer im m ed i at el y u po n rel ease f r om cus t ody. T he docke tnot es thata tr ans cr i ptw as f i l ed on J an 7, 1980. T he f i nal entr i es ar e f

or D ec em b er 2 2 , 19 8 1 , w h en a pe ti ti o n for t erm ination o f pro b ati o n an d a d isch arg e o rde r w ere ent er ed. T he docke ts heetf orcaus e number5581 i s s ubs t ant i al l y the s ame. 2 ¶5
. R o g ers d o es n o t den y that sh e p led g u il ty to tw o co u n ts of forg ery . A cc o rdin g to h er, the cha r ges s t emm ed f

r om a f ami l y di s put e thatoccurr ed w hen s he w as ei ght een ye ar s of age. The v i c t i m, h e rh a l f

- br othe r , n o l on ge rwi s he d t o pu r s ue the c ha r ge s a f t e rthe d i s pu t e w as
s ett l ed. R oger s cl ai m s ther e w as an agr eem entorunder s t andi ng, br oker ed by a pr om i nent

### Th e pro batio n o fficer testified inperso n at th e hearin g o n R og ers’s mo ti o nto 3 

### expungeher

convi ctions. His a ff

idavit was cons idere d by thetrial c ourt in t he rem oval ac ti on. 5 l ocal pol i t i ci an and att orney, t hatt he char ges w oul d be “di s m i s s ed” i f s he compl et ed thr ee y e a rs o f p ro b a tio n . R o g e rs a d m its sh e p led g u ilty b u t d e n ies sh e e v e r e v e n a p p e a re d in c o u rt; sh e clai m s t o h ave m anif est ed h er agr eem ent onl y b y si gn i ng som e pap ers . R og ers ’s pr obat i on of

f i cert es t i f

i ed i n supp ortof

hercl ai m thatherchar ges had bee n or der ed “nonadj udi cat ed, ” “di s m i s s ed, ” or“expunge d” i n 1981. 3 ¶6
. B utas the S t at e poi nt s out , t he s t atut or y s chemes f ornonadj udi cat i on and
e x p u n g e m e n t d id n o t e x is t in 1 9 7 9 o r 1 9 8 1
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 15- 26 ( Supp. 2014) ( enac t ed 1983) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 71 ( Supp. 2014) ( enacted 1 986). T he docke t
s heet s i ndi cat e thatR oger s pl ed gui l ty and t hata j udgm entw as ent er ed, w hi ch i s i ncons i s t ent
w i th nonadj udi cat i on, and they do noti ndi cat e thatany or der s of di s m i s s al orexpungement
w er e ent er ed. A f

t erthe j udgm entand s ent ence , the onl y r el evantdocketentr i es ar e “Pet i t i on f ort erm i nat i on of

pr obat i on” and “ D i s char ge or derf i l ed. ” I n the pet i t i on t o r emove herf r om
o ffic e , the trial c o u rt fo u n d R o g e rs’ s tes tim o n y a n d th e p ro b a tio n o ffic e r’s a ffid a v it, a s w e ll
as hi s t es t i m ony, t o be “r ank hea r s ay. ” H e conc l uded thatR og er s ’ s convi ct i ons had neve r b e e n d ism iss e d o r e x p u n g e d . T h e c o u rt in th e e x p u n g e m e n t a c tio n re a c h e d a sim ilar r e su lt
an d fou n d that there h ad b ee n no dism issals, no n ad jud icati o n s, or ex p u n g em en ts. T h at co u rt al s o c oncl uded thatRoger s w as notc urr ent l y e l i gi bl e f orexpungementbeca us e i ti s l i m i t ed to c e rta in fe lo n y o ff

e n se s. F o rg e ry (w h e n c o m m itt e d b y o n e o v e r th e a g e o f se v e n tee n ) is
n o t o n e o f t h e m . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -7 1 (2 )(a )-(b ). R o g e rs w a s a lso n o t elig ib le

### A mittimu s is “aco urt o rder o r warrant directin g a jailer to detaina perso n until 4 

### orde re d otherwi se ” or

“a ce rtif ie d trans cript of a pris oner ’s convi ction or sentencing proc ee dings .”Bla ck’ s Law Dic ti onar y 1093 (9th ed. 2009). It was su gg ested th at the M DO C reco rds mayhav e beendestro yedbecause o f their 5 

### age . 6 forex pu ng em ent und er the no nad j ud i cat i on st atute becau se r etroact i vity is l i m i t ed to tho se
w h o h a d p le d g u ilty w ith in s ix m o n th s o f its e ff e c tiv e d a te in 1 9 8 3
. See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 99- 15- 57. ¶7. R oger s ’ s tw o cas es have be en cons ol i dat ed on appea l
. R oger s a ppear s pr o s e and her
a rg u m e n ts a re so m e w h a t d iffic u lt t o d isc e rn . W e a re m in d fu l th a t p ro se lit ig a tan ts s h o u ld nothave mer i t or i ous ar gum ent s r ej ect ed bec aus e of i nart f ul dr af t i ng, butthey musts t i l l “be hel d t o the s ame rul es of pr ocedur e and s ubs t ant i ve l aw as r epr es ent ed part i es . ” D ethl ef s v. B eau M ais on D ev. C or

p. , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). 1. Pro of of C onv i c t i ons /M i t t i m us ¶8
. R oger s ’ s f

i r s t i s s ue s f

oc us on the pr oo f of he r pr i or c on vi c t i on s . A t var i ous t i m es dur i ng the l i t i gat i on i n thes e tw o cas es , Roger s ha d a dm i t t ed s he had be en convi ct ed of the tw o f or gery count s (w i th the ca veatthatthe convi ct i ons had bee n s om ehow “di s m i s s ed” or expunged)
. B utdur i ng the pr ocee di ngs i n the r emoval act i on, i tw as conce ded by the A t t orney G ener al thatther e w as no m i t t i m us i n R oger s ’ s “pen pa ck” mai nt ai ned by the 4 M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof Corr ect i ons . R oger s a r gues on a ppeal thatheradmi s s i on thats he

5
w as convi ct ed coul d notbe acce pt ed as proof of herconvi ct i ons w i thoutcorr obor at i on f r om th e m itt im u s, th o u g h w e u n d e rsta n d h e r a rg u m e n t to re fe r to d o c u m e n tar y c o rro b o ra tio n in gener al
. A s w e not ed above , the f i l es and mi nut e book entr i es f r om R oger s ’ s or i gi nal

### 7

cr i m i nal cas es ar e mi s s i ng and no copi es of herj udgm ent s of

convi ct i on coul d be f

ound. ¶9
. R oge r s ba s e s he r a r gu ment on the rul e tha t a s s e r t i on s of c ou ns e l a r e notevi dence
. Se e , e .g ., H

a w k in s v . S ta te , 90 So. 3d 116, 121 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012)
. H ers t at ement
o f th e ru le i s co rrect, b u t i t i s u su all y cit ed reg ard ing asse rt ion s o f oppos i ngco u n sel. T h ere
ar e many w ays f

orone’ s att orney, or on e acti ng as herow n att orney, t o conce de f act s at
var i ous st ages i n l i t i gat i on. M or eover , R oger s m ade the s ame adm i s s i ons i n hert es t i m ony atthe hea r i ng i n the r emoval act i on, i n hercapa ci ty as a w i tnes s , and i n thati ns t ance they
w e re n o t sta tem e n ts o f c o u n se l at a ll. ¶10
. W e are aw are of

no authori ty h oldi ng that adm i ssi on s of a party in her t est i m on y m ust be corr obor at ed by docum ent ary evi dence
. C ert ai nl y, cert i f i ed copi es of

j udgm ent s ar e the bes tevi dence of

a pr i orconvi ct i on, butw hen thos e ar e unavai l abl e, convi ct i ons m ay be p ro v e n b y o th e r e v id e n c e . S e e , e .g ., Sm ith v . S ta te , 72 9 S o. 2d 11 91 , 12 22 (¶153 ) ( M i ss. 1998) ( “ The be s te vi de nc e of a pr e vi ou s c on vi c t i on i s the j ud g[ ] mentof c on vi ct i on. H o w ev er, sub sti tutes forthe judgm ent of con vict i on hav e been al low ed
. ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). I n f act , i ti s comm on f

ora def endantt o s t i pul at e t o hi s pr i or conv i ct i ons i n s om e cr i m i nal p rose cu ti o n s, w h ere the S tat e b ea rs a h igh er b u rde n an d the d efe n d an t i s a ffo rde d m o re
sa fe g u a rd s th a n in c iv il a c tio n s lik e tho se b e fo re u s to d a y . See, e. g. , O ld C hi ef v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 9 U .S . 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 -7 8 (1 9 9 7 ). ¶11. A f

t err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thati ts uppor t s the tr i al courtf i ndi ngs that R oger s i s a convi ct ed f

el on. 2. Suff i ci ency of

t he G ui l t y P l ea ¶12. R oger s next cont ends that her gui l ty pl ea w as unl aw f ul beca us e s he al l egedl y di d not

### Roger s ha s als o not m et thethres hold s howing that shehad a

ri ght to ef

fe ctive 6 

### as si st anceof c ounse l in thefirs t pl ac e. The Si xth Am endm ent to t he Unite d State s Constit uti on se cures theri ght to as si st anc e of counsel “[i] n al l c riminalpros ec uti ons. ” I t g en erallydo es no t app ly to civil cases, th ou ghthere are a fe w ex ceptio ns. See, e.g., MacCui sh v . Uni ted States , 844 F. 2d 733, 735 ( 10th Cir. 1988). 8 per s onal l y appearbef

or e a courtw hen she pl ed gui l ty i n 1979. H ow ever , thi s cl ai m w as not
r ai s ed by R oger s i n ei thercas e bef ore the ci r cui tcourt , and s o i ti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed on
a p p e a l. T

a te v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 919, 928 ( ¶27) ( M i s s . 2005)
. M or eover , i tappea r s that
r el i ef coul d be aw ar ded, i f

atal l , onl y underthe M i s s i s s i ppi Post
- C onvi ct i on Col l a t er al R el i ef A c t. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 3 ( R ev. 2007)
. T hi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. 3. I nef f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel ¶13. I n he rr emai ni ng i s s ue, Roger s contends she recei ved con st i tut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve
a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b e c a u se h e r a tto rn e y a lleg e d ly fa iled to u n c o v e r h e r rig h t to p o stcon vict i on rel i ef based on her ar gu m ents r egardi ng the suff i ci ency of her 197 9 g uil ty p l eas. R o g e rs f a u lts h e r a tto rn e y fo r, in ste a d , se e k in g e x p u n g e m e n t. ¶14. T her e ar e num erous p robl em s w i th thi s cl ai m , butthe mostobvi ous def ecti s that 6 R oger s f i l ed the expunge m entact i on her s el f , pr o s e. T he att orney appe ar ed and f i l ed an
am en d ed m o ti o n , b u t aft er th e fi rsth ea ri n g , R o g ers fi red h er a n d a g ain re p rese n ted h erse lf
. A pa r ty “w ho r epr es ent s [ her ] s el f cannotcl ai m i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el
. ” Mc C len ty
v . S ta te , 1 0 2 S o . 3 d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 0 -4 1 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ). M o re o v e r, R o g e rs c o u ld h av e p rese n ted th e c lai m o f i n effec ti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel t o the tri al co u rt , an d h er fail u re to d o s o p ro c e d u ra lly b a rs th e is s u e o n a p p e a l. Se e T a te , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d at 92 8 (¶2 7 ). ¶ 1 5
. T HE J UD GMEN T S OF T HE CI RC UI T CO URT OF BOL I VAR COUN TY ARE AF F I RMED . AL L COS TS OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE

### 9

APP ELLANT. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P . J J . , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CA RL T ON AND M AXW EL L, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . B AR NE S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .