JOHN FRANK GAULDEN A/K/A JOHN GAULDEN A/K/A JOHN F. GAULDEN APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 02/17/2017
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON JR. JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN FRANK GAULDEN (PRO SE)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, JJ.
In June 2013, John Frank Gaulden pled guilty to two counts of
unlawful possession of a motor vehicle and one count of
aggravated assault of a jailer. More than three years after
the Amite County Circuit Court entered its sentencing order,
Gaulden filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). The
circuit court summarily dismissed it because it was
time-barred and none of Gaulden's claims were exceptions
to the three-year statute of limitations. Gaulden appeals and
argues: (1) his PCR motion is not time-barred because he
raises errors affecting his fundamental constitutional
rights; (2) his guilty pleas were involuntary; (3) he
received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the
multi-count bill of criminal information against him was
improper. We find no error and affirm.
In June 2013, Gaulden waived indictment and filed a petition
to plead guilty to three charges listed in a bill of
information: two counts of unlawful possession of a
motor vehicle and one count of aggravated assault of a
jailer. Gaulden's guilty-plea hearing occurred on June
12, 2013. After accepting Gaulden's guilty pleas, the
circuit court sentenced him to concurrent one-year sentences
for each conviction for unlawful possession of a motor
vehicle and a consecutive twenty-year sentence for aggravated
assault. The circuit court entered its sentencing order on
June 12, 2013.
Gaulden filed his PCR motion on November 7, 2016. He attached
copies of his guilty-plea petition, the sentencing order, the
bill of information, and a printout of the statute that
criminalizes simple and aggravated assault. Gaulden also
filed a supplemental memorandum of law on January 23, 2017.
After reviewing the motion, its exhibits, and the
supplemental brief, the circuit court summarily dismissed
Gaulden's PCR motion because it was time-barred and no
exceptions to the three-year limitations period applied.
Gaulden appeals and argues that: (1) his PCR motion was not
time-barred because he raised errors affecting his
fundamental constitutional rights; (2) his guilty pleas were
involuntary; (3) he received ineffective assistance of
counsel; and (4) the multi-count bill of information was
"When reviewing a circuit court's denial or
dismissal of a PCR motion, we will reverse the judgment of
the circuit court only if its factual findings are clearly
erroneous; however, we review the circuit court's legal
conclusions under a de novo standard of review."
Berry v. State, 230 So.3d 360, 362 (¶3) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2017).