Thomas C. Smith a/k/a Thomas Carey Smith v. State of Mississippi, 301 So.3d 98

Thomas C. Smith pleaded guilty on September 6, 2018 to armed robbery (indictment cited Miss. Code §97-3-79) and was sentenced to 25 years (13 suspended, 12 to serve) plus 5 years post-release supervision and a $2,000 fine.
On April 29, 2019 Smith filed a pro se PCR motion raising multiple claims: he was convicted of a "non‑existent" crime ("armed robbery"), indictment date clerical error, ineffective assistance of counsel, illegal/essentially life sentence given his age, and an unauthorized fine.
The Pike County Circuit Court denied PCR on June 25, 2019, finding Smith’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, the indictment and charge provided full notice (form error corrected before plea), sentencing was within statutory limits, and the fine was authorized by statute.
On appeal Smith limited his arguments to (1) conviction/sentence for a non‑existent crime and (2) that his 25‑year sentence was effectively a life sentence given his age.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the indictment tracked §97‑3‑79 (Robbery; use of deadly weapon), the label "armed robbery" is commonly used and permissible, the sentence fell within statutory range, and the fine was authorized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pleading guilty to and being sentenced for "armed robbery" violated due process because the statute's title differs	Smith: "Armed robbery" is not the statutory title; thus the crime is non‑existent and conviction is void	State: Indictment tracked §97‑3‑79 language; using the term "armed robbery" is common and provides full notice	Court: Rejected Smith. Indictment tracked statute; label does not defeat notice; conviction valid
Whether 25‑year sentence is illegal because it is effectively a life sentence for a 57‑year‑old and court failed to consider age/life expectancy	Smith: 25 years plus supervision equates to life given his age; court should have considered life expectancy	State: Sentence within statutory range; defendant failed to present age/life‑expectancy evidence or object at sentencing	Court: Rejected Smith. Sentence within §97‑3‑79 limits; procedural bar for failing to object; no evidence presented to the sentencing court

Powell v. State, 291 So. 3d 788 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (upholding use of the term "armed robbery" where indictment tracks §97‑3‑79)
Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 2001) (date amendments are generally matters of form unless time is an essential element)
Foster v. State, 148 So. 3d 1012 (Miss. 2014) (defendant cannot present no evidence at sentencing then claim the court failed to consider omitted evidence)
Hampton v. State, 148 So. 3d 992 (Miss. 2014) (sentencing errors are procedurally barred if not objected to at trial)
Cox v. State, 793 So. 2d 591 (Miss. 2001) (failure to object that a term-of-years sentence "amounted to" life bars appellate review)
Graves v. State, 216 So. 3d 1152 (Miss. 2016) (indictments that track statutory language provide sufficient notice)
Hayes v. State, 203 So. 3d 1144 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (sentencing within statutory range will not be disturbed on appeal)