IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2018-CP-01585-COA BRUCE LAWRENCE APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/19/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOW ARD COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRUCE LAW RENCE (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/22/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ. McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In 2003, an O ktibbeha County grand jury indicted Bruce Lawrence f or the m urder of Lillian Ingram an d f

o r f elony driving-under-the-inf luence (DUI) b ecause he h ad been convicted of DUI on t w o p r i o r o ccasions. His trial began in A pril 2004. Af ter the State presented i t s c a s e-in-chief , Lawrence decided to p lead guilty to m urder. Af

ter the court

a c cepted his plea, the f

elony DUI charge was retired t o the f ile, and the court sentenc e d
Lawrence to lif

e i m p r isonm ent. On October 2, 2 018, Lawrence f iled his second m otion f

or post-conviction relief (PCR), which the Oktibbeha County Circuit Court sum m arily denied.
From the court’s judgm ent, Lawrence appeals. Finding that Lawrence’s PCR m otion is tim ebarred and successive-writ-barred, we af f i rm .Facts

¶2. T h e r e l e v a n t f

a cts are f ound in our opinion in which we af f irm ed the denial o f Lawrence’s f

irst PCR m otion. Lawrence v. State , 970 So. 2 d 1 291 (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2007).
Lawrence was indicted on January 28, 2003, f o r m u rder and f

elony D UI. The two of

f enses

were c harged in a single indictm ent, with each of f ense d etailed with statutory ref erences and ending with the words “contrary t o the f o rm of the statute in such cases and m ade and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of

Mississippi.” ¶3. Lawrence was a p p o i n t e d c ounsel who advised him throughout the pre-trial process and at trial. Af

t er the State presented i ts case-in-chief , Lawrence and his attorney conf erred and L awrence decided to plead guilty t o m urder. Lawrence later sought in h is f irst PCR

m otion to have his guilty plea set aside. He s aid he only pleaded guilty

because his lawy er told him he would be sentenced to serve twenty y ears. He reasoned that his guilty plea was involuntary and his a ttorney was inef f e ctive. But at h is plea hearing on April 27, 2004, prior
to accepting the plea, the court thoroughly questioned Lawrence regarding knowledge of the
consequen ces of p leading guilty

. In his petition to plead guilty , Lawrence attested that he

was pleading guilty f

reely and voluntarily

. He acknowledged t hat h i s c o unsel had done
every thing he could to assist him and that if counsel told him that he m ight receive a lighter sentence, counsel’s prediction was not binding o n the court. T h e c o u r t ’ s questions to Lawrence covered, am ong other things, t he r ights Lawrence w a s w a i v i n g . L a w r ence testif

ied that h e u n d erstood that there was only o ne sentence f or the crim e o f m

urder—lif

e im p risonm ent. He a lso said he w as satisf ied with the advice a nd assistance of his attorney

.

2W e af

f irm ed the circuit court’s j udgm ent sum m arily d eny ing Lawrence’s f irst PCR m otion. ¶4. O n O ctober 2, 2018, Lawrence f iled his second PCR m otion. He claim ed that th e indictm ent was def

e ctive and his a ttorney was i nef f ective f or not c hallenging it. On October 19, 201 8, the court f

ound t hat the PCR m otion w as f iled past the three-y ear statute of lim it a t ions p rovided in M ississippi Code Annotated s ection 99-39-5(2) ( Rev. 2 015). In ad d i t i o n t h e court f

ound that the PCR m otion m et none of the e x ceptions to the statute of lim itations and denied relief

. ¶5. Lawrence appeals the court’s order, arguing t hat t he indictm ent w as def e ctive and that he was n ot af

f orded ef f ective counsel. We f

i nd no error by the circuit court and af f irm its denial of Lawrence’s PCR m otion. Standard of Review ¶6. “W hen reviewing a trial court’s denial o r dism issal of a P CR m otion , w e w i l l only dis t u r b t h e t rial court’s decision if the trial court abused its discretion and the decision is

c l e a r l y erroneous; however, we review the trial c ourt’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Green v. State , 242 So. 3d 176, 178 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). Discussion ¶7. The Mississippi Unif orm Post-Conviction C o llateral Relief Act ( UPCCRA) provides “an exclusive and unif

orm procedure f

or the collateral review of convictions and sentences.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-3(1) (Rev. 2015). Lawrence was o bligated to f ile his PCR m otion within t hree y ears of t he entry of his judgm ent of conviction. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2)

3(Rev. 2015). There are statutory exceptions to the three-y ear statute o f lim itations, 1 but none

of them apply here. Id. ¶8. Violations of f

our ty pes of f undam ental rights a lso s urvive PCR procedural tim e-bars: “(1 ) t h e r i g ht against double jeopardy ; ( 2) the right to be f r ee f rom an illegal sentence; (3) the right to due process a t s e n tencing; and (4) t he right not t o be s ubject to ex post f acto laws.” Putnam v . State , 212 S o. 3 d 8 6 , 9 2 ( ¶ 1 6) ( Miss. Ct. App. 2016). But this is not an exhaustive l ist. The r ecent case of McCoy v. S tate , No. 2017-M-01735, 2019 W L 1578752,
at * 1 (Miss. Mar. 2 6, 2019), illustrates that “inef f ective assistance of counsel c an c onstitute

an exception to the waiver and successive-bars.” “But m er e a s s e r t ions o f constitutionalrights violations do not suf f ice to overcom e the procedural bar.” W hite v. State , 59 So. 3d 633, 636 (¶11) (Miss. C t. App. 2 011). “There m ust at least appear to b e som e basis f or the truth of t he claim bef

ore t he procedural bar will b e waived.” Id. The burden of p roving that

one of these exceptions applies i s on the m ovant. Brandon v
. State , 108 So. 3d 999, 1004 n.3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). ¶9. In t his case, Lawrence plea d e d g u i l t y o n A p ril 27, 2004. H e f iled h is second PCR

m otion on October 2, 2018, long af ter the three-y ear s t atute of lim i tations period had run. In hi s s e c o n d P CR m otion, Lawrence raises no issue that f alls into one of the statutory exceptions. The case he relies upon concerning his def ective indictm ent, McNeal v. State ,

1 T h ese in clu d e, a m o n g o th ers an d u n d er th e s p ecif ic circu m stan c e s p ro v id ed in th e statu te: (1 ) “an in terv en in g d ecisio n o f t h e S u p rem e C o u rt o f e ith er th e S tate o f M ississip p i o r t h e U n ited S tates

. . .”; (2 ) n ew ev id e n ce “n o t reaso n ab l y d isco v e rab l e at t h e tim e o f trial

. . .”; (3 ) ex p iratio n o f th e sen ten ce; o r (4 ) u n law f u l re v o c a t i o n o f p ro b a t io n , p aro le, o r co n d itio n a l release. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (2 )(a)-(b )

. 4658 So. 2d 1345 (Miss. 1995), i s a preceding, n ot a n inte r v e n i n g , suprem e court decision.

He raises no newly discovered evidence, and his sentence has not expired. T heref ore we f ind that the court correctly held that Lawrence’s second PCR m o tion was tim e -barred. ¶10. The UPCCRA also im poses a b ar against successive writs. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39- 23(6) (Rev. 2015). A m ovant is g ranted one bite a t the apple, s o he m ust “place bef

ore the
court all claim s known to him and/or of which he should have had knowledge.” Salter v. State , 1 84 So. 3d 9 44, 951 (¶24) (Miss. C t. A pp. 2015). “ T he f a ilure to do so results in a loss

o f his claim s f

or a s econd or s uccessive p etition.” Id. B ecause t his is L awrence’s second PCR m otion, it i s also barred under the successive-writs p rohibition, including his claim of inef f ective counsel. Conclusion ¶11. F i n d i n g L a

w r e n c e ’ s s e cond PCR m otion both t im e-barred and successiv e - w r i t

- b a r r e d , the court’s denial of

his PCR m otion is hereby af f irm ed. ¶12. AFFIRMED. BARNES, C.J., C ARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, LAWRENCE, M c CARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.

5