IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2016-CP-00474-COA BERNICE FRIERSON A/K/A BERNICE JAMES FRIERSON A/K/A BERNICE J. FRIERSON APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/01/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ANTHONY ALAN MOZINGO COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BERNICE FRIERSON (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/12/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ. ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In 2013, Bernice Frierson p leaded guilty in P earl River County Circuit Court to one
count of possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to distribute. Frierson was sentenced to twenty y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm e nt of Corrections (MDOC). In 2016, Frierson f iled a m otion f

or postconviction relief (PCR). The circuit court denied Frierson’s PCR m otion, f

inding that the m otion w as d ef icient. Frierson now appeals. F inding no error, we af f irm

. FACTS ¶2. On July 8, 2013, Frierson pleaded guilty to one count of pos s e s s i o n of a controlledsubstance with intent t o distribute in violation of Mississippi Code A nnotated section 41-29-

139(a)(1) (Supp. 2016). He was sentenced to twenty y ears in the custody

of the MDOC. ¶3. Frierson f

iled an a m ended m otion 1 f or PCR in the Pearl River County Circuit Court

on October 27, 2015, claim ing that: (1) the cir cuit court erred in a ccepting his guilty plea because there was no f

actual basis presented during his plea hearing; (2) he was not inf orm ed of the m inim

um and m axim

um sentences he could r eceive f or the charge to which he pleaded guilty ; (3) his i ndictm ent was insuf f icient because it did not specif ically state where he was g o i n g t o sell the drugs f

ound in his car at the tim e of t he arrest; and (4) his counsel was inef f ec t i v e . On March 1, 2 0 16, the circuit c ourt dism issed Frierson’s am ended m otion as def icient in that the m otion f ailed to conf

o rm to the requirem ents of Mississippi C o d e Annotated section 9 9-39-9 ( Rev. 2 015). Specif ically , the circuit court f

ound the m otion to be def icient because it lacked a “concise statem ent of t he claim s or grounds upon which it [ was] b a s e d, a sworn statem ent of the specif ic f a cts [ that were] within [ Frierson’s] knowledge, and a specif

ic statem ent of f

acts which [ were] not within his knowledge.” ¶4. Frierson a

ppealed on March 11, 2016, asserting the f ollowing: (1) there was no f actual basis presented d

uring his guilty -plea hearing; ( 2) he was not inf orm ed of the m inim

um and

m axim u m possible sentences f

or his charge; (3) his indictm ent was insuf f icient; and (4) his counsel was inef

f e ctive in f

ailing to prevent these errors.

1 T h is w a s F r i erso n ’s seco n d attem p t t o f ile a m o t io n f

o r P C R f o r t h i s p articu lar ch arg e. F rierso n ’s f

irst attem p t w as a j o in t m o tio n f

o r t w o sep arate cases. T h e c ircu it co u rt or de r e d t h e j o in t m o tio n retu rn ed to h im b ecau se M ississip p i C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 9 9 -3 9

- 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 5 ) req u ires a m o tio n to b e lim ited to a claim f o r relief ag ain st o n e j u d g m en t o n ly

. F rierso n am en d ed h is m o tio n . 2DISCUSSION

¶5. Sect i o n 9 9-39-9(1)(c)-(e) provides that a PCR m otion requires—am ong other things—a concise statem ent of the claim s or grounds u pon w h ich it is b ased , a sworn
sta t e m ent of the specif

ic f acts within the m ovant’s k nowledge, a n d a specif

ic statem ent of f acts that are not within the m o v ant’s knowledge. ¶6. In its order dism issing Frierson’s m otion, the circuit c ourt m ad e c l ear that it was dism issing the m otion as def i cient under s ection 99

- 3 9

- 9

. Specif ically , the circuit court f ound that Frierson’s m otion lacked various com p onents required by the s t a t u t e . First, it lacked a concise statem e nt of the claim s or grounds upon w hich F rierson’s m otion was based. Second, it lacked a sworn statem ent of the specif

ic f acts within his knowledge. And third, it lacked a specif

ic statem ent of

f acts that were not within his knowledge. ¶7. “Although this Court h a s of ten acknowledged that m e ritorious cla i m s of pro se petitioners will not be avoided based on inartf u lly d raf ted pleadings, we have instructed that petitioners, even if p r o c eeding p ro se, m ust com p ly with t he dictates of section 99-39- 9(1)(d)-(e).” Ho o g h e v
. S tate , 187 So. 3d 682, 683 ( ¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Chapman v. State , 47 So. 3d 203, 207 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)). ¶8. The c i rcuit c ourt f ound that F rierson’s am ended PCR m otion d id not m eet the requirem ents set f

orth i n section 99-39-9. And while neither party addresses this issue on appeal, af ter reviewing the record, we cannot f ind that t he circuit court erred in dism issing Frierson’s PCR m otion as def icient. Theref

ore, the dism issal of

Frierson’s PCR m otion is af f irm ed, without prejudice, so that he m ay r ef ile a m o tion that com

plies with t he dictates of

3section 99-39-9.

¶9. AFFIRMED. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

4