JOHNNY RAY SIMS A/K/A JOHNNY R. SIMS APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/2016
FROM WHICH APPEALED: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON.
PRENTISS GREENE HARRELL TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHNNY RAY SIMS (PRO SE).
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD.
LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ.
This appeal concerns whether the trial court properly
dismissed Johnny Ray Sims's third motion for
postconviction relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.
In 2005, Sims pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated
assault. The charge resulted from a car chase in which Sims,
fleeing the police with his girlfriend, struck two other
cars. Sims was initially charged with three counts of
aggravated assault-Counts I and III involved the car-accident
victims, and Count II involved Sims's girlfriend. The
State dismissed Counts I and II. He was sentenced to twenty
years, with one year and two months to serve and the
remainder on postrelease supervision. Sims was also ordered
to pay restitution to the two victims of the car accidents.
In 2006, Sims's postrelease supervision was revoked after
he was charged with capital murder.
Sims filed his first PCR motion in 2007, which the trial
court summarily denied. Sims filed his second PCR motion in
2008, raising several issues, one of which was that ordering
him to pay restitution to the victim in Count I resulted in
an illegal sentence. The trial court dismissed Sims's PCR
motion, finding it was subject to the time bar and
successive-writ bar as well as without merit. See
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015) (time-bar);
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015)
(successive-writ bar). This Court affirmed in Sims v.
State, 134 So.3d 317, 326 (¶44) (Miss. Ct. App.
2013) (Sims I). The Mississippi Supreme Court
granted certiorari and affirmed. Sims v. State, 134
So.3d 300, 302 (¶1) (Miss. 2014) (Sims II).
Sims filed his third PCR motion in February 2016, arguing one
of the same issues raised in his second PCR motion and ruled
upon in Sims I and Sims II-that his
sentence was illegal because he was ordered to pay
restitution to the victim in Count I, even though that count
was dismissed. The trial court dismissed Sims's motion,
finding that Sims's PCR motion was a successive writ and
without merit. Sims now appeals, asserting that the trial
court erred in dismissing his PCR motion.
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