Magee v. State, 2013–CP–01121–COA.

• Decision Date: 09 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2013–CP–01121–COA.,2013–CP–01121–COA.
• Parties: Deriera MAGEE a/k/a Derie'Ra Magee, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

152 So.3d 1193

Deriera MAGEE a/k/a Derie'Ra Magee, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 2013–CP–01121–COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

Dec. 9, 2014.

Deriera Magee, appellant, pro se.

Office of the Attorney General by Barbara Wakeland Byrd, attorney for appellee.

Before IRVING, P.J., BARNES and CARLTON, JJ.

Opinion

BARNES, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. On July 21, 2000, Deriera Magee pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in Cause No. K–2000–013P and was sentenced to fourteen years, with six years to serve in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and eight years of post-release supervision (PRS).

¶ 2. Subsequently, on May 17, 2001, Magee pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in Cause No. K–2001–094E, and he was sentenced to fifteen years. Five years were to be served in the custody of the MDOC, consecutively to his prior six-year sentence; the remaining ten years were to be served on PRS concurrently with the eight years of PRS already imposed.

¶ 3. Magee was discharged from MDOC's custody on April 29, 2008, to begin serving his two concurrent PRS terms. However, on March 27, 2009, Magee was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. As a result, the Pearl River County Circuit Court revoked Magee's eight-year term of PRS (Cause No. K–2000–013P) on July 21, 2009. Inexplicably, the record reflects that prior to the revocation, a field officer had filed a “Petition for Termination of Post–Release” for Cause No. K–2001–094E on May 19, 2009, stating that Magee “ha[d] met the conditions of his [PRS].”¹

¶ 4. On September 5, 2012, Magee filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR), contending that the revocation of his PRS for the 2000 sentence violated his rights against double jeopardy, false arrest, and false imprisonment. He also brought a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. The Pearl River County Circuit Court judge dismissed Magee's PCR motion as being procedurally time-barred under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–39–5(2) (Supp.2012). The judge also noted that Magee failed to cite any authority to support his arguments. Finding no error, we affirm.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. A PCR motion may be summarily dismissed by a circuit court without an evidentiary hearing “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.”Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–11(2) (Supp.2014). “To succeed on appeal, the movant must: (1) make a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right and (2) show that the claim is procedurally alive.” Scott v. State, 141 So.3d 34, 35 ( ¶ 2) (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (citing Young v. State, 731 So.2d 1120, 1122 ( ¶ 9) (Miss.1999)). Unless the circuit court's decision is “clearly erroneous,” we will not reverse its dismissal of a PCR motion. Ashmore v. State, 127 So.3d 303, 305 ( ¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438, 441 ( ¶ 6) (Miss.2010)). “However, questions of law are reviewed de novo.” Id.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–39–5(1)(h) (Supp.2014) states that a PCR movant “may file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment ... if the person claims .... [t]hat his sentence has expired; his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked; or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody[.]” In the case of a guilty plea, the failure to file a PCR motion “within three (3) years after entry of the judgment of conviction” results in a procedural bar. Miss.Code Ann. § 99–39–5(2).²

¶ 7. However, section 99–39–5(2)(b) provides an exception from the time-bar for “those cases in which the petitioner claims that his sentence has expired or his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked. ” (Emphasis added).³ Despite this clearly-stated exception to the time limitation in the statute, the trial court ruled that Magee's motion was time-barred. The specially concurring opinion posits a theory under which the trial court could be correct. The concurrence contends that there is no “specific statute of limitations for unlawful-revocation claims”; therefore, Magee's claim is statutorily time-barred under Mississippi Code Annotated section 15–1–49 (Rev. 2012), the “catch-all” statute of limitations. In a recent case, Fluker v. State, 2013–CP–00608–COA, ––– So.3d ––––, –––– (¶ 18), 2014 WL 2723882, at *4 ( ¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App. June 17, 2014) (petition for certiorari filed Nov. 10, 2014), our Court stated in dicta that the general statute of limitations of section 15–1–49 would be an additional bar to Patrick Fluker's PCR motion.⁴ However, upon a more thorough examination, we find this analysis contrary to the letter and spirit of the Uniform Post–Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA).

¶ 8. Section 15–1–49 provides a general three-year statute of limitations for “all actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed[.]” Section 99–39–5(2), however, clearly provides a three-year limitation for filing post-conviction motions (that is, motions “for relief under this article”—Title 99, Chapter 39, Article 1, the Mississippi Uniform Post–Conviction Collateral Relief Act). The fact that a specific exception was created for “those cases in which the prisoner claims that ... his probation, parole or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked” does not mean that there is no “prescribed” limitation, but rather that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has decided to except certain cases from the prescribed limitation.

¶ 9. The concurring opinion argues that were we to apply the exception in section 99–39–5(2), it would provide Magee with “an unlimited amount of time to file his unlawful-revocation claim”; however, we must presume that the Legislature considered such issues when enacting the language of the UPCCRA. Section 99–39–3(1) of the UPCCRA states that “[t]he purpose of this article is to revise, streamline and clarify the rules and statutes pertaining to post-conviction collateral relief law and procedures ... and to provide the courts of the state with an exclusive and uniform procedure for the collateral review of convictions and sentences.” (Emphasis added). Applying section 15–1–49' s “catch-all” limitation to circumvent the specific exceptions to the statute of limitation prescribed in section 99–39–5(2) would violate the letter and spirit of the law, which is to provide an “exclusive and uniform procedure” for the review of claims brought under the UPCCRA. Furthermore, if we employ the concurring opinion's rationale to other stated UPCCRA exceptions, a prisoner who was being held in custody, even though his sentence had expired, could not bring a motion three years after the expiration of his sentence, to challenge his unlawful imprisonment; he would have to remain in custody indefinitely.

Or, if intervening authority would provide a prisoner relief from his conviction or sentence, he would be time-barred after three years from the date of that “intervening authority,” even though the authority “would have actually adversely affected the outcome of his conviction or sentence[.]” Therefore, applying the general “catch-all” statute of limitations to a prisoner's claims would violate the spirit of the UPCCRA and the Legislature's specific intention that such claims should not be time-barred.

¶ 10. The Mississippi Supreme Court has explicitly stated: “The UPCCRA is unambiguous as it relates to parole revocations. Indeed, it could not be more clear: it excepts claims of unlawful parole revocation from its three-year limitations period. ” Edmond v. Miss. Dep't. of Corr., 783 So.2d 675, 678 ( ¶ 12) (Miss.2001) (emphasis added). Additionally, this Court has consistently held that “[a] post-conviction claim alleging unlawful revocation of probation is not subject to the time[-]bar of section 99–39–5(2).” Leech v. State, 994 So.2d 850, 853 ( ¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (citing Daggans v. State, 741 So.2d 1033, 1037 ( ¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). Accordingly, we find that Magee's PCR motion is excepted from the procedural time-bar. Nevertheless, we find no merit to the issues presented by Magee upon review.

¶ 11. Here, the circuit court revoked Magee's PRS for Cause No. K–2000–013P (eight years).⁵ Magee claims that the circuit court's revocation subjected him to double jeopardy, false arrest, and unlawful imprisonment, as he had been effectively discharged from both PRS sentences. Magee is evidently under the impression that since a petition to terminate his PRS for his 2001 conviction (Cause No. K–2001–094E) was filed with the circuit court, he was also no longer serving his eight years of PRS for the 2000 conviction. However, he has provided no evidence to support this claim. If an appellant does not support his allegations of error with any argument or authority, an appellate court “need not consider the issue.” Small v. State, 141 So.3d 61, 69 ( ¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App.2014) (citing Jordan v. State, 995 So.2d 94, 103 ( ¶ 14) (Miss.2008)). Nothing in the record indicates Magee had been released from his eight years of PRS under Cause No. K–2000–013P. Therefore, we cannot find that his PRS was “unlawfully revoked.”⁶

¶ 12. Consequently, we also find no merit to Magee's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim pertaining to his counsel's failure to provide the circuit court with his the petition for the termination of PRS for the 2001 conviction. “A petitioner must produce ‘more than conclusory allegations on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.’ ” McCray v. State, 107 So.3d 1042, 1045 ( ¶ 12) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Carpenter v. State, 899 So.2d 916, 921 ( ¶ 23) (Miss.Ct.App.2005)).

¶ 13. As Magee has not shown he is entitled to any relief, we affirm the circuit court's dismissal of his PCR motion.

¶ 14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PEARL RIVER COUNTY DISMISSING THE ...