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.

Magee v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

October 30, 2018

CHAD HAMILTON MAGEE APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2018

          RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. STEVE S. RATCLIFF III TRIAL JUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DANIEL CHRISTOPHER JONES

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE

          BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

          WILSON, J.

         FOR THE COURT:

         ¶1. Chad Hamilton Magee appeals from an order of the Rankin County Circuit Court denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Magee argues that all four of his sentences should run concurrently and that the circuit court erred by ordering two of the sentences to run consecutively to each other and to his first two sentences. We find no error and affirm.

         ¶2. In May 2009, Magee pled guilty to grand larceny and was sentenced to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) with nine years and 97 days suspended. In June 2010, Magee pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to ten years in MDOC custody with seven years suspended. The court ordered the sentence to run concurrently to Magee's sentence on his 2009 conviction. In May 2011, Magee pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit kidnapping and was sentenced to five years in MDOC custody with four years and 364 days suspended on each count. The court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to Magee's sentences on his 2009 and 2010 convictions. Magee was later released but failed to report to his probation officer from September 2015 to August 2016, when he was arrested in Alabama and returned to Mississippi. Based on Magee's failure to report, the circuit court revoked Magee's post-release supervision and suspended sentences and remanded him to MDOC custody to serve the remainder of his sentences.[1]

         ¶3. On August 31, 2017, Magee filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the circuit court. Magee alleged that his guilty pleas (entered in 2009, 2010, and 2011) were not voluntary and that the attorney who negotiated the pleas was ineffective. He also alleged that he was denied a fair revocation hearing. After reviewing Magee's petition and exhibits, the transcripts of his three plea hearings, and the transcript of his revocation hearing, the circuit court found that "it plainly appear[ed] that Magee [was] not entitled to any relief." Therefore, the circuit court denied Magee's petition. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015) (providing that a motion for post-conviction relief should be summarily dismissed "[i]f it plainly appears from the [record] that the movant is not entitled to any relief"). Magee then filed a timely notice of appeal.

         ¶4. Magee's claim on appeal is different from the claims asserted in his petition for post- conviction relief. On appeal, he contends that his two sentences for conspiracy to commit kidnapping should run concurrently to each other and concurrently to his prior sentences for grand larceny and aggravated assault. Magee relies on the circuit judge's remark during his revocation hearing that his sentences should run concurrently.[2] However, Magee did not raise this issue in his petition for post-conviction relief. He raised the issue for the first time in a "Motion to Add Missing Exhibit Page to Petition for Post Conviction Relief," which he filed thirty-six days after his petition. Magee's motion asked the court to "allow him to place [an additional transcript page] into the record," but he never requested leave to amend his original petition for post-conviction relief.

         ¶5. Magee's argument on appeal is without merit. The issue is procedurally barred because Magee failed to raise the issue in his petition for post-conviction relief and failed to request or obtain leave to amend his petition. See, e.g., Gardner v. State, 531 So.3d 805, 808-09 (Miss. 1988) (stating that issues "not raised in [a] motion for post-conviction relief . . . may not be raised" for the first time on appeal); Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 1090, 1092 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that if a petitioner desires to amend his petition for post-conviction relief, he must do so within thirty days or request and obtain permission of the circuit court). In addition, the circuit court's remarks during the revocation hearing are not controlling. Rather, the court's subsequent written decision is controlling. See Hill v. Hinds County, 237 So.3d 838, 844 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017), cert. denied, 237 So.3d 1269 (Miss. 2018); Shinn v. State, 74 So.3d 901, 905 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). The court's revocation order clearly and accurately reflects that the kidnapping sentences run consecutively to each other and consecutively to Magee's prior sentences.[3]

         ¶6. Magee only briefly mentions two other issues in his appellate brief. He alleges that his revocation hearing was held twenty-seven days after he was arrested in Alabama, and he alleges that he was never afforded a preliminary hearing. However, Magee failed to raise these issues during his formal revocation hearing. Therefore, the issues are procedurally barred. See Britton v. State, 241 So.3d 639, 643 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Presleyv. State, 48 So.3d 526, 528 (ΒΆ9) (Miss. 2010)). These issues are also without merit, as Magee "failed to ...


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.