ELLIOTT FREEMAN A/K/A ELLIOTT ANTHONY FREEMAN A/K/A ELLIOTT A. FREEMAN APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 06/20/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN, Judge
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ELLIOTT FREEMAN (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KAYLYN HAVRILLA MCCLINTON
IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WILSON, JJ.
Elliott Freeman appeals from the summary dismissal of his
second motion for post- conviction relief (PCR). Freeman pled
guilty but now alleges that his indictment failed to charge
the crime of burglary of a dwelling. Freeman's claim is
barred because his motion is an impermissible successive PCR
motion filed well beyond the three-year statute of
limitations of the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief
Act (UPCCRA). Moreover, even if Freeman's claim were not
procedurally barred, it is wholly without merit.
Freeman's appellate brief raises additional issues that
were not presented to the circuit court; however, these
issues are also procedurally barred and without merit.
Therefore, we affirm.
In 2009, Freeman pled guilty as a habitual offender to
conspiracy to commit burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a
dwelling, and petit larceny. In connection with Freeman's
plea, the district attorney agreed to allow him to plead
guilty as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code
Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015) rather than under
section 99-19-83. The court imposed consecutive sentences of
five years for conspiracy and twenty-five years for burglary
and a concurrent sentence of six months for petit larceny.
In 2011, Freeman filed a PCR motion in the trial court. The
motion was denied, and Freeman's appeal was dismissed as
untimely. Freeman v. State, No. 2011-TS-00747-COA
(Miss. Ct. App. July 26, 2011).
In 2016, Freeman filed a second PCR motion in which he
alleged that his indictment failed to charge a crime. The
circuit court reviewed Freeman's motion and determined
that it was time-barred, an impermissible successive writ,
and without merit. Accordingly, the circuit court summarily
dismissed the motion. Freeman filed a timely notice of
On appeal, Freeman repeats his challenge to the sufficiency
of the indictment. He also raises new claims that his plea
was not voluntary and that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel, and he argues that his claims are not subject to
the procedural bars of the UPCCRA.
A movant "who fails to raise an issue in his [PCR]
motion . . . before the trial court may not raise that issue
for the first time on appeal." Fluker v. State,
17 So.3d 181, 183 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing
Gardner v. State, 531 So.2d 805, 808-09 (Miss.
1988)). Therefore, Freeman's claims of ...