IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2018-CP-00303-COA
DONALD WILLIE CAREY A/K/A DONALD CAREY APPELLANT

v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/29/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DONALD W ILLIE CAREY (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA W AKELAND BYRD NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/15/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:
EN BANC. WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Donald W illie Carey appeals f rom the circuit court’s dism issal of his m otion for postconviction relief

. Carey ’s claim s f

or relief are without m erit. Theref ore, we af f irm

. ¶2. In January 2006, Carey was convi c t e d o f a g gravated a ssault and a r m ed r obbery

in
Madison County Circuit Court. The court sentenced him to concurrent term s of f if teen y ears
in the c ustody of the Mississippi Departm ent of C orrections ( MDOC). The court suspended
nine y ears of each s e n t e n c e c o nditioned on Carey ’s good conduct and s atisf actory com

pletion
of a f ive-y ear term of post-release supervision (P R S )

. F o l l owing a t erm o f im prisonm ent, Carey was released, but he f

ailed to com

plete his term of PRS. On March 25, 2013, Careypled guilty to the of f ense of kidnapping, which he com m itted w h ile o n PRS. The sam e day , the circuit court also revoked Carey ’s concurrent suspended sentences f or aggravated assault
and arm ed robbery and ordered Carey r em anded to the c u stody of the MDOC until he had
served the sentences in f

ull. 1 ¶3. On January 2 3, 2018, Carey f iled a m otion f

o r post-conviction relief alleging that his suspended sentences h ad been unlawf ully revoked. C arey asserted that there was insuf f icient
evidence to support his r evocation f or n ew c rim i n a l a ctivity

. The c ircuit court dism issed Carey ’s m otion a s tim e-barred. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015) (providing that, s ubject to certain exceptions, a m otion f or post-convic t i o n r e l i e f shall be f iled within three y ears of

the entry of a guilty

plea). Carey

f iled a tim ely

notice of appeal. ¶4. W e af

f i rm. T h e c i r cuit court p roperly dism issed Carey ’s m otion because it clearly
f ails on the m erits. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015) (providing that a judge

m ay sum m arily d i s m iss a m otion f or post-conviction relief that “ plainly ” f ails to state a
claim ). 2 There w as suf

f icient evidence to revoke Carey ’s suspended sentences b ecause he

1 T h e co u rt also sen ten ced C arey to a co n secu t iv e ter m o f f if teen y ears i n M D O C
cu sto d y o n h is n ew co n v ictio n f o r k id n ap p in g
. T h e co u rt su sp e n d ed all b u t e i g h t een m o n th s o f th e n ew sen ten ce an d im p o sed a n ew f

iv e-y ear term o f

P R S co m m en c i n g u p o n C arey ’s release f ro m M D O C cu sto d y
.
2 C arey ’s claim th at h i s su sp en d ed sen t en ce w as u n law f u lly rev o k ed is ex cep ted f ro m th e statu te o f lim itatio n s. S ee M i ss. C o d e A n n
. § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (2 )(b ); E va n s v. S ta te , 1 8 8 S o
. 3 d 1 2 5 6 , 1 2 5 9

- 6 0 ( ¶¶1 2

- 1 3 ) ( M i ss. C t. A p p
. 2 0 1 6 )

. “It is a f am iliar ru l e th at th is C o u rt w ill af f irm th e lo w er co u rt w h ere th e rig h t resu lt is reach ed , ev en th o u g h w e m ay d isag ree w ith th e reaso n f

o r th e r esu lt.” S tew a rt v. Wa lls , 5 3 4 S o
. 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). We af f irm th e circu it co u rt’s d ism i ssal o f C arey ’ s mo t i o n f o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief f o r th e reaso n s stated in th is o p in io n
. 2pled guilty

to a new crim e, kidnapping, which he com m itted while on PRS. 3 ¶5. On appeal, Carey advances a new argum ent: that he w as entitled to c redit against his

concurrent nine-y ear suspended sentences f or the a p proxim a t ely two y e ars and eight m onths
that he served on PRS. That argum ent is procedurally barred because it is raised f or the f irst
tim e on appeal. Gardner v. State , 531 So. 2d 805, 8 08-09 ( Miss. 1988). It i s also without

m erit. As this Court has h eld, “probation does not equal tim e served and cannot be credited
toward a suspended sentence.” Simmons v. State , 913 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). Likewise, no credit is allowed against a suspended s entence f or t im e spent on PRS.
Schwend v. State , 996 So. 2 d 174, 175-76 ( ¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2 008); Fluker v. State , 2 So.
3d 717, 720 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008); Johnson v. State , 802 So. 2d 110, 1 12-13 (¶¶9-10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Theref ore, upon revocation of Carey ’ s PRS, the c i rcuit c o urt had authority to order Carey t o s erve his f u ll suspended sentences f or aggravated assault and

arm ed robbery

. ¶6. Carey ’s claim s f

o r relief are plainly w i t h o u t me r i t

. T h e r e f ore, the circuit court properly dism issed his m otion f

or post-conviction relief

. ¶7. AFFIRMED.
GR I F FIS, C .J., BARNES AND CARLTON, P.JJ., GREENLEE,

3 S ee B ro w n v. S ta te , 8 6 4 S o
. 2 d 1 0 5 8 , 1 0 6 0 (¶9 ) ( M i ss. C t. A p p
. 2 0 0 4 ) (“Wh ere th e S tate seek s to rev o k e o n e’s p ro b atio n b ased u p o n an alleg atio n o f crim in al activ ity , it m u st sh o w p ro o f o f an actu al co n v i ctio n , o r th at a c rim e h as b een co m m itted an d th at it is m o re lik ely th a n n o t t h at th e p ro b atio n er co m m itted t h e o f f en se.”). C a r e y ’s rev o c atio n o rd er f o u n d t h at C arey h a d co m m itted tw o n ew o f f en ses , k id n ap p in g an d sex u al b attery

. T h e reco rd d o es n o t d isclo se th e f in al d isp o sitio n o r u n d erly in g f acts o f th e sex u al b attery ch a rg e. How ev er, th e issu e is im m a terial b ecau se C arey ’s co n v iction for ki dna ppi ng c l e a r l y pr ovi de d
a su f f icien t b asis f

o r th e co u rt to rev o k e h is su sp en d e d sen ten ces. 3WESTBROOKS AND T INDELL, JJ., CONCUR. McDONALD, LAWRENCE AND

McCARTY, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.

4