Elliott Anthony Freeman a/k/a Elliott Freeman v. State of Mississippi, 294 So.3d 1245

Freeman pled guilty in 2009 as a habitual offender to conspiracy to commit burglary, burglary of a dwelling, and petit larceny; he was indicted under §99-19-83 but pleaded and was sentenced under §99-19-81.
Sentences: 5 years (Count I), consecutive 25 years (Count II), concurrent 6 months (Count III), with habitual-offender consequences under §99-19-81.
Freeman filed two prior PCR motions (2011 and 2016); both were denied (the 2011 appeal dismissed as untimely; the 2016 denial affirmed).
Freeman filed a third PCR in December 2017 claiming his sentence was illegal because the State failed to prove he had served the requisite time for prior felonies (arguing §99-19-83 governed).
The circuit court dismissed the 2017 PCR as time-barred and successive-writ barred, and found the record showed Freeman had been sentenced under §99-19-81 with sufficient proof of prior convictions; the court denied relief.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed: Freeman’s motion was time-barred, successive, and meritless because the record established habitual-offender status under §99-19-81.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Freeman)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Procedural bars (timeliness / successive writ)	Freeman sought relief despite filing >3 years after conviction and after two prior PCRs; argued his claim implicated a fundamental right so exception should apply	The PCR was filed outside the 3-year statute and was a successive motion barred by §99-39-23(6); no valid exception applies	Court: PCR is time-barred and successive; procedural bars apply and defeat the motion
Alleged illegal sentence (statutory basis)	Freeman contends he was sentenced under §99-19-83 and State failed to prove prior terms were actually served, rendering the sentence illegal	Record shows Freeman pleaded guilty and was sentenced under §99-19-81, which does not require proof that prior terms were served; certified prior convictions were in the record	Court: Freeman was sentenced under §99-19-81; State presented sufficient proof of prior convictions; claim lacks merit
Fundamental-rights exception / due process at sentencing	Freeman asserts illegal sentence and due-process errors qualify as exceptions to procedural bars	State: no showing of a fundamental constitutional violation; claim lacks factual basis in the record	Court: No basis of truth shown for an exception; the asserted constitutional claims fail

Freeman v. State, 220 So. 3d 1024 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (reciting Freeman’s earlier PCR history and affirming prior denial)
Tingle v. State, 285 So. 3d 708 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (standard of review for PCR denials)
Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (standard for appellate review cited)
Hayes v. State, 282 So. 3d 1185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (identifying fundamental-rights exceptions to procedural bars)
Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d 1239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (listing fundamental-rights exceptions)
Frazier v. State, 907 So. 2d 985 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (explaining §99-19-81 proof requirements)