JAMES CHARLES FUNCHESS A/K/A JAMES C. FUNCHESS A/K/A JAMES FUNCHESS APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 03/26/2018
MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JAMES CHARLES FUNCHESS (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BILLY
J. WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.
James Charles Funchess pleaded guilty to one count of sale of
cocaine within 1, 500 feet of a school. He was sentenced to
sixty years, with thirty years suspended and five years of
postrelease supervision. Funchess filed two prior motions for
postconviction relief (PCR). This appeal concerns
Funchess's third motion for PCR. His first two were
dismissed by the trial court, and he appealed both
dismissals. This Court consolidated the appeals and affirmed
the trial court's decisions. Funchess v. State,
202 So.3d 1286, 1288 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)
Funchess now appeals, asserting (1) his indictment was
insufficient, (2) his plea was involuntary, (3) he received
ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) the sentence was
illegal. Finding no error, we affirm.
"When reviewing a trial court's denial or dismissal
of a PCR motion, we will only disturb the trial court's
factual findings if they are clearly erroneous; however, we
review the trial court's legal conclusions under a de
novo standard of review." Bass v. State, 237
So.3d 172, 173 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).
When a prisoner has already filed a PCR motion, the second or
a successive PCR motion is barred. Miss. Code Ann. §
99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015). Because this is Funchess's third
PCR motion, it is barred as successive.
Yet "[e]rrors affecting fundamental constitutional
rights are excepted from the procedural bars of the [Uniform
Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act]." Williams v.
State, 158 So.3d 1171, 1173 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App.
2014). However, "mere assertions of
constitutional-rights violations do not suffice to overcome
the procedural bar." Id. In addition to the
successive-writ bar, Funchess argues similar issues as those
set forth in his prior PCR motions, which we addressed fully
in Funchess I. Regardless, we will review the issues
to determine whether Funchess has overcome the procedural