DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/24/2013.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CLAY COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS JR.
SHELBY RAY PARHAM, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: MELANIE THOMAS.
BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
OPINION
Page 881
ISHEE, J.
[¶1] In 2004, Shelby Ray Parham pleaded guilty in the Clay County Circuit Court to uttering a forgery. The circuit court sentenced him as a habitual offender to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Parham filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) in 2009. The circuit court dismissed the motion as time-barred but found that, the procedural bar notwithstanding, the issues Parham had raised were meritless. The following year, this Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Parham's PCR motion.[1] In 2012, Parham filed another PCR motion in the circuit court that was later dismissed. Aggrieved, Parham now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
[¶2] In April 2004, Parham was indicted for seven charges, including false pretense, uttering a forgery, and fraudulent use of identity to obtain a thing of value. Parham, 54 So.3d at 868 (¶ 3). Due to Parham's past convictions, the State moved to amend the indictment to reflect Parham's status as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-83 (Rev. 2000). Parham, 54 So.3d at 868 (¶ 4). The circuit court did not take action on this motion. Id.
[¶3] Pursuant to plea negotiations, the State later filed another motion to amend Parham's indictment to reflect his status as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2000) -- a habitual-offender statute carrying less severe punishments than Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-83. Parham, 54 So.3d at 868 (¶ 4). Parham joined the State's motion, and the motion was granted. Id. Subsequently, Parham pleaded guilty as a habitual offender to one count of uttering a forgery; the State dismissed the other six charges. Id.
[¶4] Parham filed a PCR motion in 2009 claiming his sentence was illegal because his habitual-offender status was imposed without the approval of a jury. The circuit court dismissed the motion as time-barred. Nonetheless, the circuit court addressed Parham's assertion, and determined his claim was without merit. Parham appealed the circuit court's judgment.
[¶5] In 2010, we addressed Parham's claims on appeal and affirmed the ...