COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/23/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROGER T. CLARK. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
CAMILLE SEAGO, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: MELANIE DOTSON THOMAS.
BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND MAXWELL, JJ. IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶1] On June 7, 2010, Camille Seago pleaded guilty to two counts of false pretense. In her plea petition, she acknowledged a possible sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment, a fine of up to ten thousand dollars, or both. The trial court rejected the State's sentencing recommendation and withheld acceptance of Seago's plea, adjudication of guilt, and imposition of the sentence pending the successful completion of a four-year nonadjudication probationary period. She was ordered to comply with a number of conditions, including the following: (1) to report to the supervising officer as directed, (2) to pay $55 per month for supervising fees to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for the duration of her probation, and (3) to pay $200 per month to cover court costs, fines, and restitution. The trial court reserved the right to accept Seago's plea of guilty and to proceed to sentencing upon a finding that Seago violated the terms and conditions of her nonadjudication probationary period.
[¶2] On October 11, 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke Seago's probation, asserting she had violated the above conditions. A warrant was issued for her arrest. On December 28, 2010, Seago wrote a letter to the trial court admitting her probation violations, and explaining that she had fled the State of Mississippi because her husband had abused her. She was arrested in Wisconsin and extradited to Mississippi. A hearing was held on March 28, 2011, where the trial court found that Seago had violated the terms of her probation. The trial court revoked Seago's nonadjudication probationary period, found her guilty of both counts of false pretense, and sentenced her to ten years for each count, to be served in the custody of the MDOC, with the sentences to run concurrently.
[¶3] On December 6, 2012, Seago filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), asserting that she was denied due process of law because the ten-year sentence imposed
was greater than the four-year nonadjudication probationary period she originally received. The trial court denied Seago's motion, finding that because Seago was not adjudicated guilty, she was not sentenced, and that it was permitted to impose up to the maximum sentence allowed for false pretense. Seago now appeals, asserting the trial court erred in denying her motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶4] When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review. Hughes v. ...