ANTHONY MILES FORTENBERRY A/K/A, ANTHONY FORTENBERRY A/K/A ANTHONY, M. FORTENBERRY, APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/08/2013.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARILY DISMISSED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
FOR APPELLANT: EARNESTINE ALEXANDER.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, bye: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD.
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND CARLTON, 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. Anthony Miles Fortenberry pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95(1)(c) (Rev. 2014). The Rankin County Circuit Court sentenced him to a term of twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with thirteen years suspended and with five years of supervised probation. Fortenberry filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR), alleging (1) he was denied an evidentiary hearing; (2) there was no factual basis for the acceptance of the plea; and (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court dismissed Fortenberry's PCR motion. Feeling aggrieved, Fortenberry appeals.
¶2. Finding no error, we affirm.
¶3. Fortenberry was indicted for sexual battery for inserting his finger into the vagina of a then fourteen-year-old girl on or about January 31, 2011. On November 30, 2011, Fortenberry pleaded guilty to the crime, and the trial court sentenced him to serve a term of twenty years, with thirteen years suspended and with five years of supervised probation. In addition, the trial court ordered Fortenberry to pay a $1,000 fine to the Victims' Compensation Fund, and to register as a sexual offender.
¶4. On July 26, 2012, Fortenberry filed a pro se PCR motion. After reviewing Fortenberry's guilty-plea and sentencing-hearing transcript, in addition to his criminal
file, the trial court dismissed the PCR motion, finding that " it plainly appears from the face of the above-mentioned motion that [Fortenberry] is not entitled to any relief." As stated, Fortenberry now appeals and argues: (1) he was denied an evidentiary hearing, (2) there was no factual basis for the ...