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.
[¶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. 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 ...