180 So. 3d 767
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Roy D. Wallace was indicted for robbery; the State moved to amend the indictment to charge him as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81.
- The amended indictment relied on prior felony convictions from 1987 (aggravated assault, West Virginia) and two 2001 aggravated-robbery convictions in Tennessee.
- Wallace pleaded guilty on December 10, 2007; the motion to amend was granted the same day but the order was entered December 11, 2007.
- The trial court sentenced Wallace to 12 years as a habitual offender (no parole/probation).
- Wallace’s first PCR motion (filed after sentencing) was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Wallace submitted a second PCR motion in April 2014 claiming his sentence was illegal because the amendment/order was entered after his plea; the trial court denied it as successive, time-barred, and meritless, and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether second PCR was procedurally barred/time‑barred | Wallace contended his sentence was illegal and sought relief despite prior denial | State argued UPCCRA bars successive motions and §99-39-5(2) requires PCR within three years after a guilty plea | Court: PCR was successive, barred by res judicata and untimely under statute; no exception shown |
| Whether sentencing as habitual offender was invalid because the amendment was entered after plea | Wallace argued amendment/order was entered the day after his plea, so sentence was illegal | State argued defendant had notice and was not unfairly surprised; amendment timing does not defeat due process if notice given | Court: Timing did not render sentence illegal; Wallace had notice and knowingly pled as habitual offender |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. State, 88 So. 3d 789 (Miss. Ct. App.) (appellate decision affirming sufficiency of proof for habitual-offender status)
- Whitfield v. State, 105 So. 3d 385 (Miss. Ct. App.) (amendment to charge habitual status on plea day not error where defendant had notice and knowingly pled)
- Gowdy v. State, 56 So. 3d 540 (Miss.) (URCCC 7.09 requires fair notice and opportunity to defend; timing not specified)
- White v. State, 59 So. 3d 633 (Miss. Ct. App.) (procedural bars and exceptions for PCR motions)