Small v. State
141 So. 3d 61
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Small pleaded guilty to burglary as a habitual offender; sentenced to 18 years with 7 years post-release supervision (non-reporting 4 years) after a staged record amendment.
- Judgment filed February 11, 2010; PCR motion dated February 12, 2013 and filed February 13, 2013, dismissed as time-bar and meritless.
- Indictment amended June 3, 2009 to reflect two prior burglaries (Tate County 2001-35BT, Panola County 2001-25BP1) as predicates for habitual-offender status.
- Plea agreement included a cap of 18 years; Small admitted the two prior convictions and that they subjected him to habitual-offender sentencing.
- Small filed pro se motions (September 28, 2009 and January 27, 2010) seeking withdrawal of plea and to discontinue sentencing; sentencing occurred February 2, 2010.
- Court concluded there was no reversible error and affirmed the dismissal of the PCR motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR motion was time-barred under UP-CCRA §99-39-5(2). | Small claims the bar does not apply to illegal sentences. | State asserts the three-year bar applies and the sentence was not illegal. | The sentence was not illegal; procedural bar properly applied. |
| Whether Small’s habitual-offender sentence was illegal due to lack of bifurcated hearing and lack of conviction dates in the indictment. | Small asserts no separate hearing and insufficient conviction-date proof. | State sufficiently proved prior offenses; no bifurcated hearing required when defendant admits priors. | No error; bifurcated hearing not required where defendant admits priors; notice was sufficient. |
| Whether admission of pen-pack documents violated confrontation rights. | Pen-pack documents denied right to confront witnesses. | Documents are self-authenticating and not testimonial; no violation. | No error; issue waived or, in any event, not violative of confrontation rights. |
| Whether cumulative error warrants relief. | Cumulative impact of errors alleged. | No individual error; therefore no cumulative error. | No cumulative error; PCR dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. State, 69 So.3d 54 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (standard for reviewing PCR dismissal; de novo review for law)
- Buckley v. State, 119 So.3d 1171 (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (procedural bars and alive claims standard)
- Benson v. State, 551 So.2d 188 (Miss.1989) (indictment sufficiency for prior convictions in habitual-offender context)
- Grim v. State, 102 So.3d 1073 (Miss.2012) (confrontation rights and testimonial documents guidance)
- Lott v. State, 115 So.3d 903 (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (prison-mailbox rule applied to determine timeliness)