Ducksworth v. State, 134 So. 3d 792

Ducksworth pleaded guilty to five armed-robbery counts on October 1, 2001 and received 30-year sentences with 10 years suspended and 5 years’ probation on each count.
He did not timely seek post-conviction review and filed a PCR motion on September 25, 2012, almost eight years after the deadline.
The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR as untimely and without merit; Ducksworth appealed.
The court evaluated the claims under UPCCRA and concluded bare assertions of involuntariness were insufficient.
The court held that parole eligibility for armed robbery was unavailable after September 30, 1994, and Ducksworth’s sentence was properly calculated under the existing statute, so there was no basis to circumvent the time-bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR was time-barred	Ducksworth	State	Yes; untimely under § 99-39-5(2).
Whether voluntariness claims escape the time-bar	Ducksworth	State	No; bare voluntariness assertions insufficient.
Whether parole eligibility affected the sentence	Ducksworth	State	No; parole ineligibility after 9/30/1994 precluded relief; proper application of statute.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required	Ducksworth	State	No; face of the motion shows no entitlement to relief.

Wilkerson v. State, 89 So.3d 610 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review for PCR findings of fact and law)
Dockery v. State, 96 So.3d 759 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (plea advisement and voluntariness in PCR context)
Stovall v. State, 873 So.2d 1056 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (need for basis for the truth of a fundamental-rights claim)
Wicker v. State, 16 So.3d 706 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (mere assertion of constitutional rights insufficient)
Ross v. State, 87 So.3d 484 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (armed robbery sentencing under post-1994 statutes)
Banks v. State, 37 So.3d 81 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (post-1994 sentencing limitations for armed robbery)
Parker v. State, 119 So.3d 987 (Miss. 2013) (unconstitutional aspects of certain sentencing provisions)