290 So.3d 377
Miss. Ct. App.2020Background
- Craytonia Badger pled guilty by petition to possession of a cell phone while incarcerated (petition filed Nov. 19, 2009) and was sentenced in Copiah County to seven years on Nov. 23, 2009.
- The court reporter’s stenographic notes from the Nov. 23, 2009 joint sentencing (Badger was also sentenced on a separate burglary conviction) were unreadable due to equipment malfunction.
- The Court of Appeals remanded to the circuit court to recreate the missing transcript; the circuit court held a remand hearing on July 6, 2010 to memorialize the original Nov. 23, 2009 proceedings.
- Badger later dismissed his direct appeal; over seven years after sentencing, he filed (Aug. 7, 2017) a motion to “correct the records” seeking to change the sentencing date to July 6, 2010 and alleging he never actually pleaded guilty.
- The circuit court denied the motion; the Court of Appeals treated the filing as an untimely/successive PCR petition raising due-process and public-records claims and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Badger's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of sentence / sufficiency of proof of guilty plea | No transcript proves Badger pleaded guilty on Nov. 23, 2009; July 6, 2010 hearing lacked a plea so the sentence is illegal | Record contains Nov. 19 sworn plea petition and Nov. 23 sentencing order; July 6, 2010 merely memorialized the original hearing; presumption of regularity applies | Affirmed — plea and sentencing valid: petition, sentencing order, and admissions at remand establish a knowing, voluntary plea; no new sentencing was required |
| Allegation that the Nov. 23, 2009 sentencing order is a false document / request to correct the sentencing date to July 6, 2010 | Sentencing order is false and used to enhance other sentences; date should be corrected to remand date | No evidence the order is false; claim is procedurally barred as a successive/untimely PCR except for fundamental-rights claims; court properly refused clerical correction | Affirmed — no falsity shown; court did not abuse discretion in refusing to change the date; procedural bars apply though court addressed merits for constitutional claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (errors affecting fundamental constitutional rights excepted from UPCCRA procedural bars)
- Hannah v. State, 943 So. 2d 20 (Miss. 2006) (solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of validity)
- In re Dunn, 166 So. 3d 488 (Miss. 2013) (appellate court may take judicial notice of its own files)
- Whitaker v. State, 22 So. 3d 326 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (trial courts have inherent power to correct clerical errors)
- Gaulden v. State, 240 So. 3d 503 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review for denial of PCR: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)