FREDERICK EMANUEL SCURLOCK A/K/A FREDERICK SCURLOCK A/K/A FRED SCURLOCK A/K/A FREDERICK E. SCURLOCK, APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/30/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES MCCLURE III. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
FOR APPELLANT: FREDERICK EMANUEL SCURLOCK (Pro se).
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER.
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. LEE, C.J., GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
¶1. This appeal arises from the Panola County Circuit Court's denial of Frederick Emanuel Scurlock's motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). On appeal, Scurlock argues that (1) the State failed to introduce testimony from the witness who certified the documents used to prove his prior convictions; (2) the circuit court erroneously imposed a habitual-offender enhancement, and (3) the State failed to provide evidence of the alleged victim's age.
¶2. Because we agree with the circuit court's judgment denying Scurlock's PCR motion, we affirm.
¶3. On March 1, 2000, Scurlock pleaded guilty to statutory rape and was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and twenty-two years of post-release supervision. During his plea hearing, Scurlock stated that he understood that he was giving up his right to appeal his conviction. When asked if he willfully and unlawfully had sex with a child less than fourteen years of age, Scurlock answered in the affirmative. Scurlock also admitted that he was over twenty-one years of age at the time of the offense, and that his mistaking the age of the victim was no defense. The circuit court, finding that Scurlock's plea was freely and voluntarily made, accepted the plea and deferred sentencing until March 31, 2000.
¶4. On January 22, 2013, Scurlock filed his PCR motion, arguing that (1) the State failed to introduce testimony from the witness who certified the documents used to prove prior convictions; (2) the circuit court erroneously imposed a habitual-offender enhancement to his sentence, and (3) the State failed to provide evidence of the alleged victim's age. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that it was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and had no merit.
¶5. " We review a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion under a clearly-erroneous standard of review." McLaurin v. State, 114 So.3d 811, 813 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (citation omitted). " We review questions of law de novo." Foster v. Durr, 123 So.3d 940, 941 ...