MICHAEL BERNARD MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL B. MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL BANARD MOORE APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 09/14/2016
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, HON.
CHRISTOPHER LOUIS SCHMIDT JUDGE:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM STACY KELLUM III
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
LAURA HOGAN TEDDER
LEE, C.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.
On October 17, 2011, Michael Bernard Moore pled guilty to
statutory rape and was sentenced by the Harrison County
Circuit Court to thirty years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Moore filed a
motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) in 2016, which the
circuit court dismissed. The circuit court determined that
the motion was procedurally barred and Moore was not entitled
to any relief for his claims. Finding no error, we affirm.
On July 26, 2010, Moore was indicted on the charges of
statutory rape in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated
section 97-3-65(1) (Supp. 2007) and the touching of a child
for lustful purpose in violation of Mississippi Code
Annotated section 97-5-23(1) (Rev. 2006). On October 17,
2011, Moore pled guilty to Count One, statutory rape, in the
Circuit Court of Harrison County, Mississippi. The circuit
court sentenced him to thirty years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with ten years
suspended and twenty years to serve, followed by five years
of post-release supervision. Moore was further ordered to pay
a $2, 000 fine, to be paid at a rate of $50 per month.
Moore's sentence also required that he register as a
sexual offender and have no further contact with the victim.
On July 1, 2016, Moore filed a PCR motion. The motion
asserted several errors, including invalidity of the
indictment, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ineffective
assistance of counsel, and double jeopardy. The trial court
dismissed Moore's motion without an evidentiary hearing,
concluding Moore's claims did not except his motion from
the three-year statutory bar. On appeal, Moore raises the
following issues: lack of jurisdiction, ineffective
assistance of counsel, lack of capacity to enter a guilty
plea, and dismissal without an evidentiary hearing.
A trial court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion "[i]f
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 . . . ." Miss. Code
Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015). The summary dismissal of
a defendant's PCR motion will be affirmed "if [he]
fails to demonstrate a claim procedurally alive substantially
showing the denial of a state or federal right."
Salter v. State, 184 So.3d 944, 948 (¶10)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citing White v. State, 59
So.3d 633, 635 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)). When
reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR
motion, we will only disturb the trial court's decision
if the trial court abused its discretion and the decision was
clearly erroneous. However, we review the trial court's
legal conclusions de novo. Hughes v. State, 106
So.3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
When a defendant pleads guilty to an offense, the
corresponding motion for post- conviction relief must be
filed within three years after entry of the judgment of
conviction. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015).
Moore's motion is time-barred, as he pled guilty in 2011
and filed his PCR motion in 2016, well after the three-year
statute of limitations. Nevertheless, we will address the
merits of Moore's appeal to determine whether he meets
any exceptions to the procedural bar. See §
99-39-5(2)(a)-(b) (statutory exceptions to the time-bar);
Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503, 507 (¶12)
(Miss. 2010) ...