WILLIAM R. EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM RANDLE EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONSON, JR. A/K/A RANDALL EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM R. EDMONSON A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONDSON, JR. A/K/A WILLIAM RANDALL EDMONDSON A/K/A WILLIAM EDMONDSON APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2016
FROM WHICH APPEALED: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL
JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOWARD
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM R. EDMONSON, JR. (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY L. GORE
LEE, C.J., FAIR AND GREENLEE, JJ.
William R. Edmonson, Jr., filed a post-conviction-relief
(PCR) motion claiming that the Lowndes County Circuit Court
improperly revoked his post-release supervision (PRS) and
imposed the remainder of his two previously suspended
consecutive five-year sentences for uttering forgeries. More
specifically, he argued that he was denied due process
because he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and his
sentences exceeded statutory guidelines. The circuit court
summarily dismissed the PCR motion without the necessity of a
hearing. On appeal, Edmonson does not reiterate his
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Therefore, it is not
before this Court. As to all other claims, we find no error
and affirm the circuit court's judgment summarily
dismissing Edmonson's PCR motion.
On May 24, 2006, Edmonson pled guilty to two counts of
uttering a forgery. On both counts, he was sentenced to five
years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC), followed by five years of PRS. The
sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total of
ten years of incarceration, followed by ten years of PRS.
In September 2015, Edmonson's PRS was revoked because he
had violated several conditions of his PRS: he was arrested
and charged with grand larceny, he had tested positive for
illegal drugs, he had failed to pay required supervision fees
to MDOC, and he had failed to pay court-ordered restitution
and fines. The circuit court then ordered him to serve the
remainder of his two sentences, ten years in total, with
credit for time served awaiting revocation.
On October 18, 2016, Edmonson filed a PCR motion. Relevant to
this appeal, Edmonson argued that (1) the circuit court
lacked authority to impose a period of imprisonment greater
than ninety days for his first technical violation of his
PRS, (2) he was unconstitutionally held in excess of the
statutory time period to conduct a revocation hearing, and
(3) a discrepancy existed between his written revocation
sentence and the sentence orally imposed at his revocation
hearing. The circuit court summarily dismissed Edmonson's
PCR motion. Edmonson appeals.
We review the denial of a PCR motion for abuse of discretion,
meaning "this Court will not disturb the factual
findings of a trial court in denying the [motion] unless such
findings are clearly erroneous." Rowland v.
State, 42 So.3d 503, 506 (¶8) (Miss. 2010).
"When reviewing questions of law, our standard is de
novo." Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838
(¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). The summary dismissal of a
PCR motion will be affirmed "if the movant fails to