IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2016-CP-00203-COA PATRICK L. KING A/K/A PATRICK LASHUN KING A/K/A PAT L. KING A/K/A PATRICK KING APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/01/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAMAR PICKARD COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: COPIAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PATRICK L. KING (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA W AKELAND BYRD NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL-POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/22/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND WESTBROOKS, JJ. WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Patrick King pled guilt y i n t h e C i r c u i t C o urt of Copiah C ounty to six counts of counterf eiting records. King later f iled his f irst p etition f

or postconviction r elief (PCR) in the circuit c o urt, and it was denied. King appealed the circuit court’s denial of his f irst petition, and this C ourt d ism issed that appeal. King v
. S tate , 2013-TS-01166-COA (Miss.
Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2013). King f iled a second PCR petition, b ut t he circuit c ourt dism issed King’s petition f

or lack of jurisdiction. King subsequently f iled an appeal in t he Mississippi Suprem e Court, a nd the Suprem e Court f ound that the circuit court erred in d i s mi s sing King’s P CR petition. T hereaf ter, King ref

iled his second PCR petition i n the circuit court,a n d the circuit court denied that petition, f inding that i t was s uccessive and without m erit. King now appeals the circuit court’s decision. Finding no error, we af f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. Around April 2012, King s old f i ve DVDs and one CD to a n u ndercover investigator wit h t h e a t t o r n ey general’s of f ice. The transaction was recorded on c am era. K ing was indic t e d o n s i x c o u

n t s o f v i olating Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-23-89 (Rev. 2014), “which p rohibit s t h e s ale or distribution of recordings w i thout display of required inf orm ation” (com m only ref erred to as “piracy ”). He w as also indicted on one count of being

a f elon in p ossession of a f

i rearm , in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37- 5 (Rev. 2014). ¶3. Af ter King sold the item s, investigators ob t a i n e d a search warrant and searched his business. The i nvestigators recovered around o ne thousand f i f ty DVDs a nd C Ds. 1 Af

ter investigators d iscovered the item s at K ing’s business, they searched King’s hom e, with the

consent of h is wif

e , a n d d i s covered various electronic devices that were likely used to produce the counterf

eit DVDs and CDs. ¶4. O n O c t o ber 15, 2012, King entered a guilty p lea o n t h e s i x c o u n t s o f p i r a c y . However, he agreed to an open plea in exchange f o r the dism issal of the charge of being a f elon in p ossession o f a f

irearm

. During his plea proceeding, K ing acknowledged that he understood h e was w aiving certain constitutional rights by p leading g uilty

. King expressed

1 T h e trial tran scrip t in d icates th a t th e S tate reco v ered ap p ro x im ately 1 0 ,5 0 0 C D s an d D V D s. H o w ev er, acco rd in g to th e S tate’s e v id e n ce an d p ro p erty rep o r t, p rep ared f

o llo w i n g th e search o f K in g ’s b u sin ess, th e S tate r e c o v e r ed 7 5 0 D V D s/C D s an d 3 0 0 ad d itio n al D V D s/C D s. 2that h e under s t o o d t h a t the m axim um sentence f

or each charge was three y ears. He also stated that he “understood the e lem ents of the crim e” “to knowingly f a il to disclose the nam e and address of the m anuf acturer on the DVD and CD,” and t h a t he did f ail t o d isclose the inf orm ation. King indicated that he was pleading guilty because h e was guilty , a nd that he knowingly and v oluntarily entered his plea. King n oted that he m ade t he d eterm ination to plead guilty , and that he was very happy with his counsel. ¶5. T h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a c c e p t e d K ing’s six guilty pleas, f inding that t he pleas w e r e knowingly , intelligently , and voluntarily m ade. The circuit court did not enter a sentence on that date; instead i t delay e d sen t e n c i n g t o perm it the State to m ake s e ntencing

recom m endations. The State recom m ende d t hat King be sentenced t o eighteen y ears in custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC), three y ears e ach on counts
I through VI; counts I through V would r u n c o n s e cutively , a n d count VI would run concurrently – resulting in f i f teen y ears t o serve; King t hen w o u l d s e r v e three y ears of postrelease supervision (PRS). ¶6. The c ircuit court a ccepted t he State’s s entencing recom m endation. Thereaf ter, King
f iled a m otion f

or a sentence reduction, and t he circuit court g ranted that m otion. King was

resen t enced to eighteen y e ars in t he c ustody of MDOC, with f ive y ears to serve, and the

rem ainder suspended f

or PRS. The circuit court also granted the State’s request that King
f orf eit other pirated item s and equipm ent used to m ake those item s . ¶7. In 2013, Ki n g f

i l e d h i s f i r st PCR m o tion, which the circuit court denied. King’s appeal o f that d ecision w as untim ely , and this Court theref ore dism issed the appeal. King v.

3State , 2013-TS-01166-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2013).

¶8. On October 2 2, 2015, King f iled his s e cond PCR petition, which i s at issue here. He contended t hat his sentence v iolated the Constitution; that h e was denied a p r elim inary hearing ; t h a t h i s case was not s ubm itted to a grand jury ; that he received inef f ective assistance of counsel; and that the State was without jurisdictio n t o p r o s e cute him f or
copy right inf ringem e nt. The c ircuit c ourt d ism issed the p etition, f indi n g t h a t i t lacked the jurisdiction to hear the petition. ¶9. King f

iled with the Mississippi Suprem e Court a m o tio n f o r l e a v e t o f

ile a PCR petition in the circuit court. The Suprem e Court dism issed King’s m otion without prejudice and directed him to f

ile his petition in the c i rcuit court. King ref iled his second PCR petition in the circuit c ourt, w hich the cou r t d e n i e d as successive and without m erit. King now appeals. Finding no error, we af f irm

. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶10. W e review the dism issal or denial of a PCR petition f or a buse of discretion. W e will only reverse if the circuit court’s decision is c l early erroneous. Hughes v. State , 106 So. 3d 836, 838-9 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (citing C rosby v. State , 16 So. 3d 74, 77 (¶5) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2009)). W hen review i n g q u estions of l aw, our standard is de novo. W illiams v. State , 872 So. 2d 711, 712 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “The [ circuit] court m ay sum m arily dism iss a PCR [ petition] where ‘it plainly appears f rom the f ace of the [ petitio n ] , any annexed exhibits and the p rior proceedings in the case that the [ p etitioner] is not entitled to
any relief .’” W hite v. S tate , 59 So. 3d 633, 635 ( ¶ 4 ) ( M i s s. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Miss.

4Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Supp. 2010)). “This court will a f f irm the sum m ary dism issal of

a PCR [ petition] if t he m o v ant f ails to dem onstrate ‘a claim procedurally alive substantially showing the denial o f a state or f ederal right.’” Id. (quoting Robinson v. State , 19 So. 3d 140, 142 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)).
DISCUSSION
I. Whether the c ircuit court erred in dism issing King’s P CR petition as successive-w rit barred. ¶11. The circuit court dism issed King’s PCR petition f inding t hat he was not e n titled to any relief

. The c ourt n oted that an evidentiary hearing was not required because K ing’s petition

was s u c c e s sive and l acked m erit. On appeal, the State argues that King’s second petition constituted a successive writ and was properly d ism issed. The State cites Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015), which p rovides that “any order dism issing the petitioner’s m o t ion or o therwise d eny ing relief is a f ina l j u dgm ent and shall be c onclusive until reversed. It shall be a bar to a second or successive m otion under this article.” ¶12. King f

iled his f irst P CR petition i n 2013. That petition was denied. King appealed that denial, and this Court dism issed h is a ppeal. King t hen f

iled his second PCR petition in 2015. Though there are e xceptions to t he procedural b ar against successive writs, none of those exceptions a

pply here. Accordingly , we f ind that King’s PCR petition w as successive and is procedurally

barred.
II. Whether the circuit court erred in finding K i ng’s petition lacked m erit. ¶13. Notwithstanding the p rocedural bar, we will a d dress the m erits of King’s argum ents.

5In his PCR petition and on appeal, King argues t hat his sentence was unconstitutional, that

he was erroneously denied a prelim inary hearin g , a n d that his c ase was n ot subm itted to a grand jury . King f

urther argues that he received inef f ective assistance of counsel, and that the S tate lacked j urisdi c t i on t o prosecute him f or copy r ight inf ringem ent. Af

ter caref ul review, we f

ind King’s argum ents lack m erit. ¶14. In h is petition, King asked the circuit c o urt to o verturn his c onvictions, claim ing that
f ederal law prohibits state-level prosecutions f o r copy right inf ringem ent, and a l s o t h a t his attorney rendered i nef

f e ctive assistance of counsel. W e do not agree. K i n g was not convicted of c opy

right inf ringem ent; h e was c onvicted of f ailure to display required inf orm ation, in violation o f Mississippi Code Annotated section 9 7-23-89(2). During King’s plea colloquy , he acknowledged that h e understood the crim es that he was charged with and adm itted his guilt. King also acknowledged that he understood the m axim um a nd m inim

um sentences that he could receive f o r each charge. ¶15. King was caught o n c a m e r a s e l l i n g p i r a t e d CDs a nd DVDs to an undercover investigator. O n e thousand f if t y DVDs and CDs were conf iscated, and the statutorily required inf

orm a tion was not attached t o the c o unterf eited m aterial. T h e r e f

o r e , King was guilty of violating section 97-23-89. Accordingly , this argum e nt is without m erit. ¶16. King’s c laim that he w as denied ef f e ctive assistance of counsel i s also without m erit.
To be entitled to relief b ased on a c laim of inef f e c tive assistance of counsel, King m ust show (1) that his counsel’s perf orm a nce was def

icient, and (2) that the def i ciency prejudiced his def ense. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). King asserts that his counsel

6pressured him into a last-m inute plea deal. Nevertheless , d u r i n g h i s plea colloquy , King

acknowledged that he was guilty , that he decid e d t o p l e a d guilty without the inf luence of another person, and that he w as satisf i ed with h is c o unsel’s perf orm ance. Accordingly , we f ind this argum ent lacks m erit. ¶17. King also argues t hat his constitutional rights to a p relim inary hearing and to have his

case subm itted to a grand j ury were violated. W e disagree. King entered into an open plea

t o a v o i d b eing charged with being a f elon i n possession of a f irearm

. During his plea colloquy , King acknowledged that he understood t hat he waived certain rights in entering a plea of guilty in exchange f or the State abandoning the seventh charge. Accordingly , these
argum ents lack m erit. ¶18. Finally , King asserts his sentence is unconstitutional. Yet h e f ails t o cite any arguable basis f or this claim

. “Failure t o cite relevant a uthority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.” Byrom v. State , 863 So. 2d 836, 853 (¶35) (Miss. 2003) (citing Simmons v. State , 805 S o. 2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2 001)). W e likewise f ind this issue has

no m erit. ¶19. Af ter caref ul consideration of all f

acts and circum stances surrounding King’s second PCR petition, we f

ind that the circuit court did not err in deny ing his petition. ¶20. AFFIRMED.
L E E , C .J., IRVING A ND GRIFFIS, P . J J . , B A R N E S , I S H E E , C A R L T O N , F A I R , WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

7