ANTONIO WEATHERSBY A/K/A ANTONIO R. WEATHERSBY A/K/A ANTONIO RAY WEATHERSBY APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 04/06/2017
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. PRENTISS GREENE HARRELL TRIAL JUDGE
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANTONIO WEATHERSBY (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY L. GORE
LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.
In this appeal, we must determine whether the trial court
properly denied Antonio Weathersby's motion for
postconviction relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.
In October 2015, Weathersby pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Weathersby was
sentenced to seven years with three years to serve in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and four
years of postrelease supervision.
In addition to the conviction for possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, Weathersby was convicted of two
misdemeanor crimes-driving with a suspended license and
first-offense DUI-in the local justice court. All three
convictions stemmed from a traffic stop conducted by local
authorities in 2013.
Weathersby appealed his misdemeanor convictions to the Marion
County Circuit Court. Weathersby also filed a motion to
suppress, alleging the traffic stop was illegal. On the day
of the bench trial, the trial court heard arguments and
testimony regarding the motion to suppress. Finding probable
cause existed for the traffic stop, the trial court denied
the motion and ultimately convicted Weathersby of the two
misdemeanor crimes. Weathersby did not appeal these two
Weathersby filed a timely PCR motion relating to his
conviction. Finding no merit, the trial court denied
Weathersby's PCR motion. Weathersby now appeals,
asserting the following issues: (1) the traffic stop that led
to his arrest was illegal; (2) the trial judge should not
have recused himself after hearing testimony; and (3) he was
entitled to a hearing on his motion to suppress.
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