COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2014. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOSEPH H. LOPER JR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF.
FOR APPELLANT: STANLEY MONTGOMERY (Pro se).
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: SCOTT STUART.
BEFORE LEE, C.J., ROBERTS AND JAMES, JJ. IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
[¶1] Stanley Montgomery pleaded guilty to five counts of identity theft. He was sentenced to five years on each count, with two weeks to serve and four years and fifty weeks on postrelease supervision (PRS). The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Montgomery was also ordered to pay one hundred dollars per month in restitution and an additional fiftyfive dollars per month to the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
[¶2] On August 8, 2013, the Winston County Circuit Court found Montgomery
in arrears for failure to pay his fees. The trial court ordered Montgomery to a restitution center located in Leflore County until his fees were paid. One month later, the trial court determined Montgomery had failed to pay his fees and sent him to another restitution center located in Hinds County. In November 2013, Montgomery was expelled, upon his request, from this restitution center. Shortly thereafter, the trial court revoked Montgomery's PRS and ordered him to serve the remaining four years and fifty weeks of his five-year sentence.
[¶3] Montgomery subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). The trial court denied the motion. Montgomery now appeals, asserting the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his PCR motion; (2) his constitutional rights were violated at the restitution center; (3) his PRS revocation was unlawful; (4) the trial court failed to acknowledge that he had pursued administrative remedies; (5) the trial court did not have jurisdiction; and (6) the trial court erred in excluding certain documents from the record.
[¶4] Montgomery also argues the following: he was not informed of the consequences of pleading guilty; the trial court and the MDOC violated their policies and procedures during his preliminary revocation hearing; the trial court should have granted relief because the victim of identity theft declined to press charges; the trial court ignored the applicable statutes when sentencing him to PRS; he should not have to pay restitution; money was not credited to his restitution account; he does not know how much money he owes; an order modifying his PRS was not signed and delivered to him; and there was no evidence to support his guilty plea. However, Montgomery did not raise any of these issues in his PCR motion. " A defendant who fails to raise an issue in his motion for [PCR] before the trial court may not raise that issue for the first time on appeal." Fluker v. State, 17 So.3d 181, 183 (¶ 5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Thus, our review is limited to the six issues enumerated above.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶5] 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. ...