Michael Herrin v. State Of Mississippi, 281 So.3d 1012

In 1994 Michael Herrin pleaded guilty to rape, armed robbery, and burglary; he was sentenced as a non-violent habitual offender to consecutive terms.
The 1994 habitual-offender enhancement relied on two prior felony convictions, including a 1993 drug conviction recorded as “possession of cocaine.”
In 2016 Herrin sought correction of a 1993 sentencing order in Leflore County, arguing it erroneously stated “sale of cocaine”; the Leflore County court entered a nunc pro tunc order in 2017 correcting the record to "possession of cocaine."
In August 2017 Herrin filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion in Hinds County, asserting he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender because he actually had a sale (not possession) conviction.
The Hinds County circuit court dismissed the PCR motion on March 15, 2018; Herrin filed a pro se notice of appeal that the Court of Appeals deemed timely under the prison mailbox rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / jurisdiction of appeal	Herrin filed notice of appeal within 30 days (dated April 12)	State maintained procedural rules require timely filing; court must verify jurisdiction	Notice of appeal was delivered to prison mail within 30 days; appeal is timely under prison mailbox rule, so court has jurisdiction
Entitlement to PCR based on alleged use of a sale conviction to enhance sentence	Herrin contended he was actually convicted of sale of cocaine and thus improperly used to enhance his 1994 sentence	Record shows the prior conviction was for possession; whether possession or sale is irrelevant because Herrin had two prior felonies with sentences of a year or more, satisfying enhancement statute	PCR motion properly dismissed — prior convictions (including possession) supported habitual-offender enhancement; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court was required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a) before dismissing PCR motion	Herrin argued Rule 52(a) required findings and conclusions	State relied on Miss. Code § 99-39-11 and precedent holding trial court need only enter dismissal order and notify prisoner; Rule 52(a) is discretionary and not mandatory where § 99-39-11 applies	Court held trial judge was not required to make written findings and conclusions when dismissing a PCR motion under § 99-39-11; dismissal was proper

Hughes v. State, 106 So. 3d 836 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for PCR dismissal)
Melton v. State, 930 So. 2d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (prison mailbox rule applies to appeals from PCR denials)
Lott v. State, 115 So. 3d 903 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prison mailbox rule for pro se filings)
Culbert v. State, 800 So. 2d 546 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (Rule 52(a) discretionary; § 99-39-11 controls dismissal procedure)
Black v. State, 724 So. 2d 996 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (habitual-offender enhancement requires prior felony sentences of a year or more)
Jones v. State, 95 So. 3d 672 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (court must assure appellate jurisdiction)
Ross v. State, 16 So. 3d 47 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (same)
Tricon Metals & Servs., Inc. v. Tropp, 516 So. 2d 236 (Miss. 1987) (scope of Rule 52(a) discretion)
Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (finding request for findings makes duty obligatory in civil context)