Mark A King v. State of Mississippi, 220 So. 3d 280

Mark King was indicted (June 11, 2014) for possession of counterfeit negotiable instruments (Count I) and conspiracy (Count II); he pled guilty to Count I and Count II was nolle prossed.
On December 8, 2014, King was sentenced to ten years in MDOC and ordered to pay $498.50 in costs/fees.
In April 2016 King filed a postconviction relief (PCR) motion arguing the indictment was defective for failing to specify the monetary amount/face value of the counterfeit notes, and that his sentence thus exceeded lawful maximums.
The circuit court reviewed the record, denied relief, and dismissed the PCR, finding the felony statute in effect at the time made possession of any amount of forged negotiable instruments a felony.
King appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the indictment tracked statutory language and provided adequate notice and that the sentence complied with the statute in effect when the offense occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment was defective for not alleging the monetary amount of counterfeit notes	King: indictment failed to specify face amount; sentencing depends on amount so notice was inadequate	State: indictment tracked statute and plainly alleged possession of forged negotiable notes; no amount necessary to charge the felony	Held: Indictment was sufficient — statute criminalized possession of "any" forged negotiable note, so notice was adequate
Whether King’s ten-year sentence exceeded the lawful maximum because amount was not alleged or due to amendment to sentencing statute	King: amended §97-21-33 (effective after offense) sets varied penalties by value, so sentence unconstitutional without amount allegation	State: sentencing must follow statute in effect at time of offense; at that time felony range was 2–10 years regardless of amount; court advised King and he pleaded guilty	Held: Sentence valid — applied statute in effect when offense occurred; ten-year term within authorized range

Chapman v. State, 167 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review for PCR denials)
Davis v. State, 171 So. 3d 537 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (indictment must provide fair notice of crime)
Gilmer v. State, 955 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 2007) (indictment requirements: elements, notice, and double jeopardy protection)
Harrison v. State, 722 So. 2d 681 (Miss. 1998) (indictment sufficient if fair reading shows nature and cause of charge)
Wilson v. State, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016) (sentence is governed by statute in effect at time of offense)