ARMOND RAKEEM LEWIS A/K/A ARMOND LEWIS A/K/A ARMOND RAHEEM LEWIS APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 05/03/2017
JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. ROBERT P. KREBS COURT TRIAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ARMOND RAKEEM LEWIS (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD
LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.
Armond Raheem Lewis appeals the Jackson County Circuit
Court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief
(PCR). He claims the circuit court improperly revoked his
post-release supervision (PRS) and imposed the remainder of
his original sentences for aggravated assault and possession
of a controlled substance. In those cases, he was originally
sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC) with twelve years suspended
and eight years to serve. On appeal, we find no error and
affirm the circuit court's judgment.
Lewis pled guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a
controlled substance on August 12, 2011. He was sentenced to
twenty years for the aggravated assault with twelve years on
PRS and eight years to serve in the custody of the MDOC. He
was sentenced to serve eight years for possession of a
controlled substance. The possession sentence was ordered to
run concurrently with the aggravated assault sentence.
At some point in time after his incarceration, Lewis was
released on PRS. The State's notification of its intent
to revoke Lewis's PRS was dated March 13, 2016. In
support of its request for revocation of Lewis's PRS, the
State alleged that: (1) Lewis was charged with domestic
violence simple assault on August 13, 2015; (2) Lewis was
arrested for false identification (ID) and possession of
marijuana on March 7, 2016; (3) Lewis failed to report to the
MDOC for over eight months; (4) Lewis failed to pay his MDOC
supervision fees as directed; and (5) Lewis failed to pay all
court ordered fines and fees as directed. While the State
alleged Lewis violated his PRS in a number of ways, Lewis,
through his counsel at the revocation hearing, denied
committing only one of the enumerated violations-the August
2015 charge of domestic violence. To the remaining alleged
violations of his PRS, Lewis made no denial. The circuit
court held a revocation hearing on May 5, 2016. In its
revocation order, the circuit court delineated that Lewis
"[m]ore likely than not" violated his PRS on each
of the grounds alleged. Lewis was ordered to serve the
remainder of his two original sentences.
Lewis filed a PCR motion that was subsequently denied by the
circuit court. Therein, Lewis claimed the circuit court erred
in that: (1) the trial judge never asked Lewis why he did not
pay his ordered restitution; (2) the trial court failed to
hold Lewis's revocation hearing within seventy-two hours
of his arrest; (3) the trial court failed to recognize that
Lewis's alleged violations were only technical
violations; and (4) the trial court unconstitutionally
revoked Lewis's PRS. The circuit court found Lewis's
claims to be meritless and denied his PCR motion. On appeal,
Lewis claims that he is entitled to relief based on the same
four grounds presented to the trial court.
A trial court's denial of a PCR motion will not be
reversed unless it is found to be clearly erroneous.
Stokes v. State, 199 So.3d 745, 748 (¶7) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2016). The trial court's legal conclusions,
however, are reviewed under a de novo standard of review.
Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2012).
First, Lewis states that the trial judge violated the
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution in failing to ask Lewis why his restitution
payments had not been made. However, he provides no authority
requiring any such inquiry from the trial court. "It is
the appellant's duty to provide authority and support for
the issues he presents." Edwards v. State, 856
So.2d 587, 599 (¶45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing
Rigby v. State, 826 So.2d 694, 707 (¶44) (Miss.
2002)); accord Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 526
(Miss. 1996). Even without the required authority from Lewis,
we note that this Court in Mayfield v. State stated:
"if a trial judge is considering revoking
probation because of failure to make required
payments, the United States Supreme Court
hassuggested that it is
the judge's ...