312 So.3d 417
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background:
- In Panola County, Julius Bland kidnapped and sexually assaulted Marquitta Henderson, driving her roughly sixty miles and assaulting her; a separate rape charge was later dropped.
- Bland was indicted for kidnapping and charged as a habitual offender based on two prior burglary convictions; he signed a detailed plea petition and allocuted at the sentencing hearing.
- The trial court confirmed Bland had reviewed plea documents with counsel, admitted the State’s factual recitation (with a limited qualification), and acknowledged his prior convictions; certified copies of priors were introduced.
- Bland was sentenced to 25 years in MDOC plus five years non‑reporting post‑release supervision.
- In a PCR petition Bland argued the indictment was improperly amended from Miss. Code Ann. § 99‑19‑83 to § 99‑19‑81 (claiming an illegal enhancement), that the grand jury did not authorize the amendment, and that his habitual status was invalid due to concurrent sentences; he later alleged a plea‑breach.
- The trial court denied PCR as meritless; on appeal Bland abandoned his PCR claims and instead raised new arguments for the first time (e.g., no verbal plea, habitual status not established on the record, ineffective assistance). The Court of Appeals held those appellate‑only arguments procedurally barred and affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Bland's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory amendment of habitual‑offender designation (§99‑19‑83 → §99‑19‑81) | Amendment was substantive and illegally enhanced his sentence | Change resulted from plea negotiation and reduced, not increased, exposure; lawful | Trial court rejected claim as meritless; PCR denied on merits; appeal affirmed (issue abandoned on appeal) |
| Grand jury did not amend indictment | Indictment was illegally altered without grand‑jury action | No fatal defect; procedural posture and plea cured any defect | Trial court found claim unmeritorious; PCR denied |
| No verbal guilty plea / alleged defective allocution (raised first on appeal) | He did not verbally plead guilty so conviction is invalid | Record shows allocution and admissions at sentencing; plea was knowing and voluntary | Procedurally barred on appeal (not raised in PCR); court declined to reach merits; affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to non‑authenticated docs, confrontation, hearsay (raised first on appeal) | Counsel failed to object to inadmissible evidence and protect confrontation rights | Issues were not presented below; certified priors were introduced and counsel confirmed review | Procedurally barred on appeal; court declined to review ineffective‑assistance merits; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 973 So. 2d 1003 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (issues not raised in PCR are procedurally barred on appeal)
- Griffin v. State, 824 So. 2d 632 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (issues first raised on appeal are procedurally barred)
- Hampton v. State, 148 So. 3d 1038 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court cannot be found in error on matters not presented to it)
- Evans v. State, 115 So. 3d 879 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (procedural bar exception for fundamental rights requires some basis showing truth of the claim)
- Hays v. State, 282 So. 3d 714 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (to avoid procedural bar via a fundamental‑rights claim, appellant must cite reasons and authorities)