COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/17/2012. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHNNIE E. WALLS JR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED.
FOR APPELLANT: EARNESTINE ALEXANDER.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, bye: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD.
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., BARNES, ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
¶1. In 2001, Kevin Thomas, along with two accomplices, was charged with armed robbery of a jewelry store and brandishing a knife at the store employees. On February 22, 2011, Thomas appeared before the Coahoma County Circuit Court and pleaded
guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, which was to run consecutively to any and all other sentences previously imposed, with ten years to serve and five years of post-release supervision. He was also ordered to pay $500 to the Victims' Compensation Fund and a fine of $1,000.
¶2. On February 22, 2012, Thomas filed a motion to vacate his sentence and conviction and other post-conviction relief (PCR), raising issues of whether his guilty plea was knowingly and intelligently given and whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing on August 29, 2012, the trial court dismissed Thomas's motion. Thomas now appeals.
¶3. Finding no error, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4. A trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion " [i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 2014). " [D]ismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." O'Cain v. State, 120 So.3d 482, 484 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App. 2013) (quoting Anderson v. State, 89 So.3d 645, 649 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App. 2011)). Unless the trial court's factual findings are " clearly erroneous," we will not disturb them on ...