Smith v. State, 75 So. 3d 82

Smith pleaded guilty on March 3, 2008 in Harrison County to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced as a habitual offender to ten years in MDOC.
Smith’s two prior felony convictions were for sale of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance.
Smith filed a post-conviction relief motion on October 5, 2010 arguing he should not have been sentenced as a habitual offender.
The trial court denied the PCR motion; Smith appealed asserting improper habitual-offender status and entitlement to earned-time credit.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals reviews PCR denials de novo on questions of law and for clear error on factual findings.
The court affirmed the circuit court’s denial, concluding Smith’s arguments lack merit and clarifying earned-time relief is unavailable for habitual offenders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are concurrent prior sentences 'separate terms' under §99-19-81?	Smith contends concurrent terms are not separate terms.	State argues concurrent sentences qualify as separate terms under the statute.	Concurrent sentences are separate terms; issue rejected.
Is Smith entitled to meritorious earned time for habitual-offender status?	Smith seeks earned-time credit for habitual-offender status.	MDOC ARP procedures govern earned time; habitual offenders are not entitled.	Procedurally barred; even if considered, claim lacks merit; earned time denied.

Collins v. State, 817 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (concurrent sentences deemed 'separate' terms for §99-19-81)
Williams v. State, 24 So. 3d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (same principle of concurrent sentences as separate terms)
Smith v. State, 806 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (standard for reviewing PCR denials)
Chandler v. State, 44 So. 3d 442 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (procedural bar to raised issues in PCR)
Brown v. State, 54 So. 3d 882 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (ARN procedures for earned-time matters; ARP route)