MARK STEVEN LOPEZ A/K/A MARK S. LOPEZ A/K/A MARK LOPEZ APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 01/21/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON.
CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARK STEVEN LOPEZ (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY L. GORE
LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND GREENLEE, JJ.
Mark Lopez was convicted as a habitual offender in the First
Judicial District of the Harrison County Circuit Court. This
appeal stems from the circuit court's denial of
Lopez's motion for postconviction relief (PCR). Finding
no error, we affirm.
OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 14, 2014, Lopez was charged with the unlawful
transfer of less than ten dosage units of hydrocodone, a
Schedule III opioid. Because Lopez had previous felony
convictions, he was indicted as a habitual offender pursuant
to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015).
On December 11, 2014, Lopez voluntarily entered a plea of
guilty, and was thereafter sentenced as a habitual offender
to serve a term of four years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), without the
possibility of parole or probation. On December 15, 2015,
however, Lopez filed a motion for resentencing, which the
circuit court characterized as a PCR motion, pursuant to
Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5 (Rev. 2015).
In that motion, Lopez asserted that his sentence should be
reduced for the following reasons: (1) he received
ineffective assistance of counsel and/or an illegal sentence;
(2) he did not satisfy the requirements to be classified as a
habitual offender; (3) he completed long-term drug and
alcohol treatment, as ordered by the court; and (4) he had
served one-fourth of his sentence. Finding no merit to any of
the issues raised by Lopez in his motion, the circuit court
summarily denied his motion. Lopez timely appealed.
"This Court reviews a circuit court's [denial] of a
PCR motion for abuse of discretion." Birmingham v.
State, 159 So.3d 597, 598 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App.
2014). "We will only reverse if the circuit court's
decision was clearly erroneous." Id. (quoting
Williams v. State, 110 So.3d 840, 842 (¶11)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2013)). We review questions of law de novo.
To begin, we reaffirm that "[a]n evidentiary hearing is
not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are
specific and conclusory." Russell v. State, 44
So.3d 431, 434 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing
Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss. 1995)).
"The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary
hearing on every [motion] it entertains." Byrne v.
State, 30 So.3d 1264, 1266 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App.
2010) (citation omitted). Thus, we find at the outset that
the circuit ...