LORANZY JENKINS A/K/A LORANZY EUGENE JENKINS A/K/A LORANZY E. JENKINS APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 03/12/2018
FROM WHICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT TRIAL JUDGE:
HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LORANZY JENKINS (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
LISA L. BLOUNT
J. WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.
Loranzy Jenkins appeals the circuit court's denial of his
motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). In his PCR motion,
Jenkins asserted that the indictment against him was fatally
defective for failure to include essential elements of the
crime of gratification of lust-to which he pleaded guilty.
Finding that no essential elements were omitted in the
indictment or other reversible error, we affirm the circuit
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jenkins pleaded guilty in the Rankin County Circuit Court to
two counts of gratification of lust. The circuit court
sentenced Jenkins to fifteen years for each count, suspended
nine years from each count, and imposed five years of
post-release supervised probation. The court ordered the
sentences to run consecutively.
Jenkins timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief. He
claimed that the indictment was fatally defective, resulting
in "an illegal sentence, plain error, and the denial of
due process during [his] prosecution and sentencing." He
complained in his PCR motion that his indictment did not use
the word "feloniously" in either count and that
each count did not conclude with the language "against
the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi."
The circuit court denied Jenkins's PCR motion, stating
that "for the reasons argued by the State, the petition
is not well taken." From this order, Jenkins now
"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). "Whether
an indictment is fatally defective is a question of law ...