OF JUDGMENT: 06/18/2018
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT HON. DAL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLES BRUNET (PRO SE).
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS.
BARNES, C.J., McDONALD AND C. WILSON, JJ.
Charles Brunet, appearing pro se, appeals the judgment of the
Jones County Circuit Court, which denied his motion for
post-conviction relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2016, Brunet pleaded guilty to two counts of
sexual battery on two children, and three counts of
molestation on another child, under Mississippi Code
Annotated section 97-3-95 (Rev. 2014) and section 97-5-23
(Rev. 2014), respectively. The criminal acts on these family
members occurred between 2011 and 2015. At the time of
Brunet's arrest, the children were aged fourteen, twelve,
and nine. When sentenced, Brunet was nearly seventy-six years
old. Because of Brunet's advanced age, the State
recommended that for each count Brunet would be sentenced
only to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections, with twelve years to serve and
three years suspended, with the sentences to run
concurrently. The trial court accepted the State's
recommendation, noting the sentences would be served
day-for-day because the offenses are sex crimes.
In May 2018, Brunet filed a self-styled "Motion to
Correct Illegal Sentence." Brunet argued that his
sentence violated his right to due process because it
exceeded his life expectancy and was thus cruel and unusual
punishment. The trial court treated his motion as a PCR
petition, finding his sentence was not excessive as it was
within the statutory limits for the two crimes. The trial
court also found under Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d
565 (Miss. 1999), that the sentence was not disproportionate
when compared to other sentences imposed for the same crimes.
Further, the trial court found Brunet's plea to be
freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given. The
trial court concluded Brunet's motion was without merit,
and Brunet timely appealed.
The trial court's denial or dismissal of a PCR motion is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. We will only disturb the
trial court's factual findings if they are clearly
erroneous. Legal conclusions, however, are reviewed de novo.
Ivey v. State, 134 So.3d 796, 797 (¶4) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2013) (citing Hughes v. State, 106 So.3d
836, 838 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)).
It is well established that sentencing is "within the
discretion of the trial court . . . and generally is not
subject to appellate review if it is within the limits
prescribed by the applicable statute. This includes sentences
based on guilty pleas." Burrough v. State, 9
So.3d 368, 372 (¶10) (Miss. 2009) (citations omitted).
Moreover, "[a] sentence . . . is not disproportionate
when compared to ...