SAMUEL CONWILL A/K/A SAMUEL B. CONWILL A/K/A SAMUEL BRENT CONWILL APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 01/21/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. LEE J. HOWARD JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: SAMUEL CONWILL (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
ALICIA MARIE AINSWORTH
IRVING, P.J., BARNES AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
Samuel Conwill appeals the dismissal of his petition for
postconviction relief (PCR) in the Clay County Circuit Court.
Finding no error, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2. Conwill was indicted on one count of possession of
methamphetamine precursors and one count of possession of
methamphetamine. Conwill pled guilty to possession of
methamphetamine in exchange for the State retiring the
possession-of-precursors count. Following his conviction and
sentence, Conwill filed a motion to correct the Mississippi
Department of Correction's record of a parole to a
detainer, as to another charge and another sentence. The
trial court dismissed that motion. Conwill subsequently filed
a petition to "vacate [the] illegal sentence." The
trial court dismissed that petition. Conwill then filed a
motion to appeal out-of-time and his notice of appeal. The
trial court granted his motion to appeal out-of-time.
On appeal, Conwill argues that he was denied due process and
the right to confrontation. He claims that during his
sentencing hearing, the records of his previous convictions,
known as "pen packs, " were admitted into evidence
without foundational testimony to certify their accuracy. He
asserts that the admission of the pen packs was reversible
error. We find this argument to be without merit.
"Circuit courts may summarily dismiss a PCR motion
'if it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any
annexed exhibits[, ] and the prior proceedings in the case
that the movant is not entitled to any relief.'"
Dixon v. State, 52 So.3d 1254, 1254 (¶2) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Robinson v. State, 19 So.3d
140, 141-42 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). In reviewing
the circuit court's dismissal of a PCR motion, the
circuit court's factual findings will not be disturbed
unless clearly erroneous. Mann v. State, 2 So.3d
743, 745 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
At Conwill's guilty-plea hearing, the State moved to
amend the indictment to reflect Conwill's habitual
offender status and entered the pen packs into evidence as
proof of his status as a habitual offender. Conwill's
trial counsel did not object to the motion, and the trial
court granted the State's motion to amend. During the
hearing, Conwill's trial counsel stated that Conwill was
aware that the indictment could be amended any time prior to
trial and did not contest the amendment, because the habitual
offender stipulation was part of the plea agreement.
"When an accused fails to object to the habitual
offender issue during the sentencing phase, he is
procedurally barred to do so the first time on appeal."
Reed v. State, 180 So.3d 755, 756 (¶4) (Miss.