Derrick Dortch v. State of Mississippi, 2015-CA-01650-COA

Derrick Dortch pled guilty to shooting into an occupied dwelling and aggravated assault in Madison County; the circuit court accepted his pleas and imposed two concurrent 10-year sentences with five years suspended and a mandatory 5-year firearm enhancement on each count, resulting in ten years to serve.
Dortch filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) arguing he lacked fair notice that the State would seek firearm enhancements under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-37-37 because the indictments did not reference the enhancement and the State did not include them in its plea offer.
The initial plea hearing occurred on November 17, 2014 (off-the-record notice may have occurred then); the plea was continued and on December 8, 2014 the trial court expressly informed Dortch on the record that each conviction carried a mandatory five-year firearm enhancement and asked whether he still wished to plead guilty; Dortch affirmed.
Dortch’s counsel stated on the record that the enhancement was not in the original recommendation or indictments and reserved argument at sentencing; after accepting the pleas, the court applied the enhancements.
The circuit court denied PCR relief, finding Dortch received adequate pre-plea notice; Dortch appealed and this Court affirmed, distinguishing the present facts from Sallie v. State based on the timing of notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dortch received fair, pretrial notice of firearm sentence enhancements	Dortch: no fair notice because indictments and initial plea negotiations did not include enhancements; learned of enhancements only at plea	State/Court: Dortch was informed on the record before plea acceptance (Dec. 8) and indictments contained facts supporting enhancement (use of a firearm)	Court held Dortch received timely, adequate notice prior to entering his guilty pleas; no due-process violation
Whether an indictment must expressly cite the enhancement statute	Dortch: indictment omission means lack of notice	State/Court: indictment need only allege facts supporting the enhancement; statutory citation unnecessary	Court held no requirement that indictment recite enhancement statute when underlying facts are alleged
Whether Sallie v. State controls	Dortch: relies on Sallie for unfair-surprise due-process rule	State/Court: distinguishable because in Sallie notice came only after conviction; here notice occurred before plea acceptance	Court distinguished Sallie and found it inapplicable
Whether pleading guilty waives Apprendi jury factfinding for enhancements	Dortch: did not raise as primary claim	State/Court: guilty plea waives right to jury factfinding on sentencing facts	Court noted Apprendi requirement waived by guilty plea

Sallie v. State, 155 So. 3d 760 (Miss. 2015) (due-process requires timely notice of sentence enhancement; lack of pre-conviction notice can cause unfair surprise)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing punishment beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury unless waived)