IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2014-CP-01679-COA KENDRA STRICKLIN A/K/A KENDRA D. STRICKLIN A/K/A KENDRA DANIELLE STRICKLIN A/K/A KENDRA STRICKLAND APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JAMES T. KITCHENS JR. COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KENDRA STRICKLIN (PRO SE) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER JOHN R. HENRY JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER SENTENCES DENIED DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/08/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., MAX WELL, JAMES AND WILSON, JJ. WILSON, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Kendra Stricklin f

iled p ro se petitions asking the circuit court to r econsider sentences im p osed in three dif

f e rent cases. The circuit court f ound that it was without jurisdiction to consider her petitions. Finding no error, we af f irm

. ¶2. In October 2012, Stricklin pled guilty to uttering a f

orgery , a f

elony , in the W inston County Circuit C ourt. T he court sentenced her to ten y e a rs in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC), with a l l t en y ears suspended and f ive y e ars ofprobation.

¶3. A t t h e t i me o f S t r i c k l i n ’s sentencing i n W inston County , s he was already unde r indictm ent f

or f alse pretenses 1 in Oktibbeha County , which is in a dif f erent c ircuit court district. In January

2013, Stricklin f

iled a petition to plead g uilty to this charge and signed

a pre-sentence af

f idavit i n the Oktibbeha County C ircuit C ourt. Although it h ad been less than three m onths since she pled guilty a nd was sentenced to probation in W inston County , Stricklin swore under oath in her petition and a f f idavit that she was not o n probation and had

never b een c onvicted of a f elony or m isdem eanor in this state. She also testif ied under oath
at her plea hearing that the i nf orm ation in her plea petition w as truthf ul. Based on Stricklin’s (m is)representations, the judge accepted h er plea and sentenced her to three y ears in MDOC custody , with all three y ears suspended and three y ears of probation. ¶4. W h en the district attorney f or Oktibbe h a C o u n t y d i s c o v e r e d t h at Stricklin had

com m itted p erjury in her plea petition, in her af f idavit, and in open court, he f iled a petition
to revoke her probation in the O ktibbeha County f alse pretenses case. The petition cited the provision of her sentencing o r d e r that required her n ot to com m it a ny crim i nal of f enses as

a condition of the suspension of her sentence. The judge f ound that S tricklin had violated the term s o f her probation, revoked her probation, a nd sentenced her t o three y ears in MDOC custody

. ¶5. Stricklin also f

ac e d a n e w i n d i ctm ent f

o r perjury

2 based on h er f

alse statem ents in

1 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1 9 -3 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 4 ). S trick l i n w a s i n d i cted f o r k n o w in g ly o b tain in g m erch an d ise w ith a b ad ch eck

.

2 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -9

- 5 9 (R ev . 2 0 1 4 )

. 2c o n n e c t i on with her plea. She p led guilty to perjury , a nd on August 1, 2013, the cou r t

sentenced her to ten y ears in MDOC custody

. The court ordered that the ten-y ear sentence would run consecutively

to Stricklin’s original three-y ear sentence f or f alse pretenses. ¶6. Finally , in Janua r y 2 0 1 4 , S t r i c k l i n w a s i n d i c t e d f o r f elony shoplif

ting 3 in the Oktibbeha County

Circuit Court. Stricklin com m i tted this of f ense in August 2012—while sh e w a s under indictm ent f or f alse pretenses ( in Oktibbeha County ) and uttering a f orgery (in W inston County ) but bef ore she had pled guilty in either case. Stricklin also pled guilty
to f elony shoplif

ting, and on April 28, 2014, the court sentenced her to f ive y ears in MDOC

c u s t o dy , with three y ears suspended and three y ears of post-release supervision. T h i s sentence was not ordered to run consecutively and so runs concurrently

. ¶7. O n J u n e 4 , 2 0 1 4 , Stricklin f iled a pro se “Petition f or R econsideration ” i n t h e Oktibbeha County C ircuit C ourt. Stricklin’s petition was assigned a new civil case num ber. Her petition set f

orth no claim f

or post-conviction relief but instead sought reconsideration of her sentences in the three Oktibbeha County cases. ¶8. The court apparently construed Stricklin’s petition as a m otion f or post- c o n v i c t i on relief ( PCR) and theref

ore entered an o rder dism issing the petition w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e p u rsuant
to Mississippi C ode Annotated section 99-39- 9 ( 2) (Rev. 2 015), which provides that PCR

m otions “ s hall be l im i ted to the assertion of a claim f or r elief against one (1) judgm ent only .” The court’s order directed that if Stricklin desired to pursue PCR, she s hould f ile a separate written m otion f

or each conviction she challenged.

3 M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -2 3 -9 3 (R ev . 2 0 1 4 ). 3¶9. In response to the court’s order, S tricklin f iled separate petitions concerning her three convictions. A s with her initial petition, he r n e w petitions set f orth no claim f

or PCR. Rather, Stricklin apologized to the court and asked f or a “second chance.” ¶10. The c ourt s ubsequently entered separate orders deny ing each of Stricklin’s petitions. Each order stated that the court was “without jurisdiction t o am end any aspect o f [ S tricklin’s] sentence at this tim e.” Stricklin appealed the circuit court’s orders. 4 ¶11. Consistent with her f ilings in the circuit court, Stricklin’s appellate f ilings do not set f orth any c laim f

or PCR. Stricklin apologizes f o r not being “entirely truthf ul” or “honest” with the circuit c ourt. She adm its that “[ t]he trial court d i d n o t c o mm it any errors at all.” She realizes that she “m ade the m istake by withholding inf orm ation” and “would l ike to undo the error by

adm itting to already

being on probation in W inston County .” As in the circuit court, she asks this Court f or “m ercy ” and a “second chance.” ¶12. Because Stricklin’s petitions and a p peal set f

orth no basis f

or a ny sort of r e l i ef

, we af f irm

. The circuit c ourt construed Stricklin’s initial petition as a PCR m otion and dism issed it f or noncom

pliance with Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-9(2). W hen the court reviewed Stricklin’s subsequent petitions, it appears to have concluded that Stricklin’s pro

se f ilings were actually

m o tions to reconsider her sentences rather than PCR m o tions. W e agree with this interpretation of S tricklin’s f ilings. Although such m otions should have been docketed in the original crim inal cases, the m anner in which th e y were docketed is not

4 S trick lin also f

iled a f ed eral h ab eas p etitio n , w h i c h s h e th o u g h t to b e th e p ro p er p ro ced u re f

o r ch allen g in g th e circu it co u r t’s ru lin g s. H er h a

b eas p etit io n w as d ism issed w i th o u t p rej u d ice f

o r f ailu r e to ex h au st h er state co u rt rem ed ies. S tricklin v. M ississip p i , N o . 1 :1 4 C V 1 6 2 -S A -JM V , 2 0 1 4 WL 7 2 7 2 6 4 4 , at * 3 (N .D

. M iss. D e c. 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 ). 4im

p ortant because the circuit court correct l y held that it lacked jurisdiction to am end or reconsider S t r i c k l i n ’ s various sentences af ter the e nd of the term s of court i n which those
sentences were im

posed. Subject to certain exceptions inapplicable h ere, a “judge m ay not alter or vacate a sentence once the term o f c ourt the d ef endant was sentenced in has ended.” Ducote v. State , 970 So. 2d 1309, 1314 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). ¶13. Moreover, even if S tricklin’s petitions c o u ld be construed as PCR m o tions, she set f orth no claim

f o r relief and adm i ts that “[ t]he trial court did not com m it any errors at all.” Accordingly , even i f the petitions h a d b e e n treated as P CR m o tions, sum m ary dism issal would have been appropriate. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015) ( circuit judge

m ay dism iss a PCR m o tion sua sponte “[ i]f it pl a i n l y a p p e a rs f rom the f ace of the m otion,
any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the m ovant is n ot entitled to
any relief [ .]”). 5 ¶14. THE JUDGMENT OF THE OKTIBBEHA C O U N T Y C I RCUIT C OURT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL A RE ASSESSED TO OK TIBBEHA COUNTY. LEE, C.J., G RIFFIS, P.J., BARNES, I SHEE, CARLTON, MAX WELL, FAIR AND JAMES, J J . , CONCUR. IRVING, P.J., CONCURS IN P ART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

5 T o b e clear, w e d o n o t v iew S trick lin ’s p e t i t i o n s a s P C R m o tio n s f o r p u rp o ses o f M ississip p i C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 9 9 -3 9

- 2 3 (6 ) (R ev . 2 0 1 5 ). 5