DEAN C. BOYD A/K/A DEAN BOYD APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 12/29/2016
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. VERNON R. COTTEN JUDGE.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DEAN C. BOYD (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
GRIFFIS, P.J., BARNES AND FAIR, JJ.
Dean C. Boyd was charged with statutory rape of a child under
the age of fourteen in violation of Mississippi Code
Annotated section 97-3-65(1)(b) (Rev. 2006). On April 26,
2011, Boyd pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to
twenty-five years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. On March 27, 2012, Boyd filed a
motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). The Leake County
Circuit Court denied the motion, finding that Boyd's
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary and that he had failed
to demonstrate ineffectiveness of counsel.
A second PCR motion was filed on May 10, 2013, which was
dismissed by the circuit court as a successive writ. Boyd
appealed the dismissal of the motion to this Court. See
Boyd v. State, 175 So.3d 59 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).
Finding Boyd had failed to provide "any new evidence, or
cite an intervening decision, that would except his motion
from the procedural bar, " we affirmed the circuit
court's decision. Id. at 62 (¶¶10,
Boyd filed a third PCR motion on April 18,
2016. An amended motion was filed on December
22, 2016, which asserted: (1) there was no factual basis for
his guilty plea; (2) the trial court failed to advise him of
his right to confront witnesses and his right against
self-incrimination; and (3) his counsel was ineffective. The
circuit court dismissed Boyd's motion on December 29,
2016, finding it barred as a successive writ. See
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015).
Boyd now appeals, alleging several issues. While Boyd
acknowledges that his third PCR motion is a successive writ
and time-barred,  he contends that his claims are excepted
from the procedural bars. "[E]rrors affecting
fundamental constitutional rights are excepted from the
procedural bars of the [Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral
Relief Act]." Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503,
507 (¶12) (Miss. 2010). "But mere assertions of
constitutional-rights violations do not suffice to overcome
the procedural bar." White v. State, 59 So.3d
633, 636 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).
Upon review, we find Boyd has failed to raise any claim that
would overcome the procedural bars, and we affirm the circuit
court's dismissal of his PCR motion.
A circuit court's dismissal of a PCR motion is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. Birmingham v. State, 159
So.3d 597, 598 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (citing
Williams v. State,110 So.3d 840, 842 (¶11)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2013)). "We will only reverse if the
circuit court's decision was ...