Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moore v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

June 26, 2018

MICHAEL BERNARD MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL B. MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL MOORE A/K/A MICHAEL BANARD MOORE APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE 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

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.

          GREENLEE, J.

         ¶1. 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.

         BACKGROUND

         ¶2. 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.

         ¶3. 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.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶4. 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).

         ¶5. 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 (ΒΆ12) (Miss. 2010) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.