IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2018-CP-01125-COA

TRAVIS JAMES THOMPSON A/K/A TRAVIS

THOMPSON A/K/A TRAVIS J. THOMPSON

 APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/22/2018

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DAL WILLIAMSON

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JONES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: TRAVIS JAMES THOMPSON (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: LISA L. BLOUNT

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/26/2019

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Travis James Thompson filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) in

the Jones County Circuit Court in June 2018. Challenging three guilty-plea convictions,

Thompson claimed the indictment was fatally defective and unconstitutional and that he had

been illegally sentenced as a nonviolent habitual offender. The circuit court determined

Thompson freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered the pleas of guilty and

found that the PCR motion was without merit. Thompson appeals. We affirm the circuit

court’s decision.
FACTS

¶2. In October 2016, Thompson was indicted on three counts of possession of controlled

substances with intent to sell them within 1,500 feet of a school. In August 2017, Thompson

pleaded guilty to the three charges and was sentenced as a nonviolent habitual offender as

follows:

Count I - (423 grams of marijuana): ten years in MDOC custody, with five

years suspended, with five years to serve, and five years of post-release

supervision. 

Count II - (30 grams of cocaine): ten years in MDOC custody, with five years

suspended, five years to serve, and five years of post-release supervision. 

Count III - (69 grams of methamphetamine): twenty-five years in MDOC

custody, with ten years suspended, fifteen years to serve, and five years of

post-release supervision. 

The circuit court set the sentences to run concurrently to one another.

¶3. In October 2017, Thompson sent the circuit court a letter that the court treated as a

petition for parole eligibility or early release. In January 2018, the circuit court denied

Thompson’s request. In June 2018, Thompson sent another letter to the circuit court. This

letter was titled “motion to quash indictment.” The circuit court treated it as a PCR motion

and denied it. On July 30, 2018, the circuit clerk received Thompson’s notice of appeal.

¶4. In August 2018, Thompson filed a “motion to quash illegal sentence and get full

immunity reversal.” There is no indication in the record that the circuit court has ruled on

this motion. Sometime in October 2018, Thompson filed a copy of this motion as his

opening brief on appeal. A few days later, Thompson filed another notice of appeal, but he

did not specify the order that he intended to appeal. Consequently, this Court only has

2
jurisdiction over Thompson’s unsuccessful “motion to quash indictment.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. A circuit court may deny relief and summarily dismiss a PCR motion without

conducting an evidentiary hearing if “it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any

annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any

relief.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015). “To succeed on appeal, the movant

must: (1) make a substantial showing of the denial of a state or federal right and (2) show that

the claim is procedurally alive.” Johnson v. State, 247 So. 3d 300, 301 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App.

2017). “Th[e] [reviewing] [c]ourt’s applicable standard of review when considering the

denial of a [PCR motion] is well settled; th[e reviewing c]ourt will not disturb the factual

findings of a trial court in denying the petition unless such findings are clearly erroneous.” 

Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503, 506 (¶8) (Miss. 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d

928, 932 (¶13) (Miss. 2008)). “However, where questions of law are raised the applicable

standard of review is de novo.” Id. 

ANALYSIS

I. Sufficiency of the Indictment 

¶6. Thompson asserted in the subject PCR motion that the indictment was insufficient

because it was forged by the district attorney, the grand jury foreperson’s signature was not

affixed to it, and the phrase “against the peace and dignity of the state” was omitted from it.

The State argues that Thompson abandoned this assignment of error on appeal because it was

not discussed in his brief. 

3
¶7. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that where an assignment of error is not

discussed in an appellant’s brief, “it is considered abandoned or waived.” Magee v. State,

542 So. 2d 228, 234 (Miss. 1989). It is well-settled that “a defendant who fails to raise an

issue in his PCR motion before the trial court may not raise that issue for the first time on

appeal.” Marshall v. State, 136 So. 3d 443, 445 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Fluker

v. State, 17 So. 3d 181, 183 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). Notwithstanding the abandonment

of these errors as mentioned by the State, a review of the record indicates Thompson’s claims

regarding the indictment are without merit. Thompson overlooked or failed to acknowledge

the grand jury foreperson’s affidavit and accompanying signature. The record is also clear

that the indictment was signed as a “True Bill” byAssistant District AttorneyKristen Martin.

Thompson’s name was correctly included in the charging portion of the indictment. We find

these claims to be waived and also without merit.

¶8. Thompson also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the indictment is defective

because it does not include the phrase “against the peace and dignity of the state.”

Thompson’s indictment includes the phrase “against the peace and dignity.” And even if that

phrase had been omitted, Thompson would not be entitled to relief. Article 6, Section 169

of the Mississippi Constitution provides in part that “all indictments shall conclude ‘against

the peace and dignity of the state.’” While our courts have enforced this constitutional

requirement, “it is a matter of the form of the indictment.” Johnson, 247 So. 3d at 302 (¶5)

(citing Brandau v. State, 662 So. 2d 1051, 1055 (Miss. 1995)). Formal defects are waived

by a valid guilty plea. Id. The circuit court found that Thompson’s guilty pleas were valid.

4
A review of the transcript in the record before this Court demonstrates that Thompson

entered his guilty pleas freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. We find that these

issues were waived and that they are without merit.

II. Legality of Sentence 

¶9. Thompson maintains that he should not have been sentenced as a nonviolent habitual

offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015). He reasons that

he is serving illegal sentences. Thompson’s three prior convictions were listed in an exhibit

to the indictment. Further, the sentencing orders related to his prior three convictions were

discussed and entered into evidence during the guilty-plea sentencing hearing without

objection. “[F]ailure to object to a habitual-offender enhancement during sentencing

procedurally bars a defendant from raising that issue on appeal.” Martin v. State, 214 So. 3d

217, 220 (¶6) (Miss. 2017) (citing Cummings v. State, 465 So. 2d 993, 995 (Miss. 1985)). 

“A plea is considered ‘voluntary and intelligent’ when the defendant knows the elements of

the charge against him, understands the charge’s relation to him, what effect the plea will

have, and what sentence the plea may bring.” Willis v. State, 66 So. 3d 740, 743 (¶9) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2011) (citing Alexander v. State, 605 So. 2d 1170, 1172 (Miss. 1992)). As

previously stated, upon review of the record, this Court finds that Thompson freely,

voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligentlyentered his guiltypleas. Thompson never raised this

issue prior to entering such plea.1

 This issue is waived and also without merit. 

1

It is worth noting that Thompson was given illegally lenient sentences because he

was not sentenced to the “maximum term of imprisonment,” as required by section 99-19-

81. The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that “when the error benefits the defendant

in the form of a more lenient sentence, it is harmless error.” Sweat v. State, 912 So. 2d 458,

5
III. All of the Remaining Claims of Error

¶10. Thompson presents several claims on appeal that were not included in his PCR

“motion to quash indictment.” “This Court declines to consider matters which were never

presented or argued in the trial court and are not part of the record before us today.” 

Hampton v. State, 148 So. 3d 992, 995 (¶7) (Miss. 2014). Any assignments of error not

raised in the subject PCR motion are not properly before this Court and will not be addressed.

¶11. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, TINDELL,

McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. 

461 (¶9) (Miss. 2005).

6