IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2016-CP-00965-COA CAROL DEARMAN A/K/A CAROL LEE DEARMAN A/K/A CAROL L. DEARMAN APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/27/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN H. EMFINGER COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CAROL L. DEARMAN (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LISA L. BLOUNT NATURE OF THE CASE: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/05/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., FAIR AND WILSON, JJ. WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. On Novem

ber 29, 2011, in the Madison C ounty Circuit Court, Carol Dearm an pled guilty to m otor v ehicle thef t as a nonviolent habitual of f ender. See Miss. C ode Ann. §§ 97- 17-42 (Rev. 2014) & 9 9-19-81 (Rev. 2015). At D earm an’s plea hearing, the a ssistant district attorney represented that Dearm an took a gray Chevy Silverado f rom its owner at the Red Roof Inn in Ridgeland without the o w n e r ’ s p e r m ission. D earm an claim ed that the owner loaned her the car, but she entered a valid “ Alford plea,” adm itting under oath that the State could prove its case bey ond a reasonable d oubt and that it w as m ore likely than not that a jury would convict her. See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970). The circuit courtaccepted h er plea a s knowing and voluntary and sentenced her to ten y ears in the custody of

the Mississippi D epartm e nt of Corrections as a nonviolent habitual of f ender, said sentence to run concurrently

to sentences previously

im posed in Hinds County

. ¶2. On Septem

ber 12, 2016, Dearm an f

iled a petition f

or an “Order to Am end Sentencing per MS C ode Section 99-1-5.” Dearm an’s petition alleged that her conviction should be set aside because her i ndi c t me n t w as returned outside of the applicable two-y ear statute of lim itations. The circuit court d ism issed Dearm a n’s p etition, which it construed as a petition f or post-conviction relief

, because it was f

iled alm ost f

ive y e ars af

ter Dearm an pled guilty

. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2015) ( a m otion f or post-conviction relief m ust be f iled within three y e ars af

ter the entry of a judgm ent of conviction based on a g uilty plea). The court also noted that the underly ing stat u t e of lim itations i ssue was d iscussed on the record at Dearm an’s plea hearing. At her plea hearing, Dearm an’s attorney acknowledged that the prosecution was not barred by the statute of l im itations because a warrant w as issued f or her arrest within about six weeks of the of f ense. S e e M i s s . C ode Ann. § 99-1-7 (Rev. 2015) (“A prosecution m ay be com m en c e d, within the m eaning o f Section 99-1-5 by the issuance of a w arrant

. . . .”); see also Conerly v. State , 607 So. 2d 1153, 1158 (Miss. 1992) (holding that a valid guilty plea waives a statute of

lim i tations def

ense). ¶3. The circuit court correctly ruled that D e a rm an’s petition f or p ost-conviction relief is tim e-barred and without m erit. ¶4. AFFIRMED. LEE, C .J., IRVIN G A N D G R I F F I S , P . J J . , B A R N E S , I S H E E , C A R L TON, FAIR, GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

2