237 So. 3d 1271
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Curtis Chrishaun Evans pleaded guilty in 2002 to armed robbery (16 years, 8 suspended, 8 to serve, plus 3 years PRS) and burglary (7 years concurrent).
- While on postrelease supervision (PRS) Evans was arrested in April 2010; a July 6, 2010 revocation hearing resulted in revocation of PRS and imposition of his original sentence.
- Evans filed a first PCR in 2013 raising procedural and due-process claims; a later PCR (filed November 22, 2016) challenged the legality of his sentence, waiver of rights at plea, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the absence of signatures on the sentencing/probation order.
- The Harrison County Circuit Court dismissed the November 2016 PCR as time-barred, successive, and without merit; Evans appealed pro se.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the PCR was time-barred and successive and rejecting Evans’s substantive claims on the merits or as procedurally defaulted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / successive writ | Evans: PCR timely excused because sentence illegal and other exceptions apply | State: PCR filed ~14 years after conviction and is successive; procedural bars apply | Court: Time-barred and successive; no exception shown |
| Illegal sentence | Evans: sentence illegal and he is eligible for earned parole | State: Sentence conforms to statutory penalty for armed robbery | Court: Sentence within statutory guidelines; claim lacks merit |
| Waiver of constitutional rights on plea | Evans: not advised that plea waived trial, confrontation, self-incrimination rights | State: Evans signed waiver documents and assertions insufficient to overcome procedural bar | Court: Claim lacks merit and is procedurally inadequate |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Evans: counsel failed to inform him of rights waived by plea | State: Claim unsupported by affidavits or specific facts; must meet Strickland test | Court: Claim fails for lack of specificity and supporting affidavits; no prejudice shown |
| Missing signature on sentencing/probation order | Evans: sentencing/probation order void for lack of his or a field officer’s signature | State: Issue raised first on appeal; procedural default; omission is a clerical oversight, not illegal revocation | Court: Procedurally barred and, on the merits, omission does not invalidate revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Creppel v. State, 199 So. 3d 715 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for PCR denials)
- Kennedy v. State, 179 So. 3d 82 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (three-year PCR filing rule; exceptions to procedural bars)
- Evans v. State, 188 So. 3d 1256 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (prior appellate discussion of Evans’s revocation hearing)
- Barker v. State, 203 So. 3d 653 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (issues not raised in trial court cannot be raised first on appeal)
- Stokes v. State, 199 So. 3d 745 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (mere assertions of constitutional violations insufficient to overcome procedural bars)
- Boyd v. State, 155 So. 3d 914 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (enumeration of fundamental rights that survive PCR procedural bars)
- Avery v. State, 179 So. 3d 1182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (ineffective-assistance pleading requirements and Strickland framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Campbell v. State, 993 So. 2d 413 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (omitted signature on probation order is a clerical oversight and does not render revocation illegal)