I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CP - 0 1 6 3 0 - CO A

KE P L AF OON AP P EL LA NT v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 12/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: M ARS HALL COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: KEP LAFO ON ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : DI SM I SS ED M OTI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 10/ 07/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . K e p L a fo o n p lead ed g u il ty to fir st- d eg ree m u rde r i n the M arsh all C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt . T h e c ir cu itco u rtsen tenc ed L afo o n , as a v iole n t ha b itu al offen d er, t o li fe im p riso n m e n t w ith o u t elig ib ili ty fo r p a ro le o r ea rly rele a se . L a fo o n fil e d a m o tio n fo r p o stco n v ict ion reli ef ( P C R ), all eg ing ineffec ti v e a ssist an ce o f co u n sel. T h e c ir cu itco u rt di s mi s s e d La f

oo n’ s mot i on a s t i me- ba rr e d. Fe e l i ng a gg r i e ve d, Laf oo n a pp e a l s a nd a r gue s th a t th e c ir c u it c o u rte rr e d in d is m is s in g h is m o tio n .

### Sectio n 9 9-1 9-8 3 p rov ides: 1 

### Ever y per son c onvic te d in t

his st at e of

a fel ony who shallhave been c onvic te d twice p revio u sl y o f anyfelony o r federal crime upo n ch arges sep arately bro ug ht an d arisin g o ut o f separate in cidents at different times andwh o sh all hav e beensenten ced to andservedseparat e terms of o ne (1 ) year o r more in any s tateand/or f

ede ral penalins titution, whether in t his stateor e ls ewhe re , and whe reany one(1 ) o f such fe loni es shallhavebee n a c rimeof vi olence sha llbe se nt e nc e d to l i f ei mpri s onm e nt , and

s uc h s e nt e nc es hal lno t be re duce d or s uspe nded nor shallsuc h per son beel igiblefor paroleor probati on. Sectio n 9 9-1 9-8 1 p rov ides: 2 

### Ever y per son c onvic te d in t

his st at e of

a fel ony who shallhave been c onvic te d twice p revio uslyof any felo nyor fed eral cri me up oncharg es separately bro ug ht an d arisin g o ut o f separate in cidents at different times andwh o sh all hav e beensenten ced to s eparate terms o f on e (1) y ear or mo re in any state and/or f ede ral penalins titution, whether in t his st at e or

el se where, shallbe 2 ¶ 2 . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i rm. FACTS ¶3. L af

oon w ai ved i ndi ctm ent and w as char ged by i nf orm at i on , as a habi tual of f ender pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007) , w i th the murde rof 1 h is m o ther-in-law . T h e tw o p ri o r felon ies l ist ed in the info rm ati o n to es tablish L afo o n ’s habi tual - of

f enders t atus w er e thef

tof pr operty over$500 and thef tof mer chandi s e over $1, 000. O n O ct ober16, 2002, L af oon pl eade d gui l ty t o the cha r ge i n the i nf orm at i on, and the ci r cui tcourtsent ence d hi m as a habi tual off endert o l i f

e i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of th e M i s s i s s i p p i De p a r tme n to f Co rr e c t i o n s , wi th o u te l i g i b i l i ty f o rp a r o l e o rp r o b a t i o n . On N ov em ber 2, 20 02 , the ci rcui tco urten t ered an am end ed j ud gm ent, sent encing L afoon, as a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ), to 2

### se ntence d to t he maxim um t er m of im pri sonm ent

pre sc ribed f

or s uch f el ony, and s uch s ent enc e s hal l not be reduc ed or suspende d nor s hal l s uch pers on be el igiblefor

paroleor probation. 3 l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutel i gi bi l i ty f orpar ol e orpr obat i on. ¶4. O n J une 20, 2013, L af oon f i l ed a PC R m ot i on, i ns i s t i ng that even though the mot i on w as unt i m el y, i tw as exce pt ed f r om the t i m e- barbeca us e hi s f undament al r i ghtt o ef

f ect i ve assistan ce o f co u n sel h ad b ee n v iolated. M o re sp ec if icall y , L afo o n all eg ed that h is co u n sel’s f ai l ur e t o obj ectt o h i s being char ged as a habi tual of f enderpur s uantt o s ect i on 99- 19- 83 con st i tuted i neff

ect i ve assi st ance of coun sel , as neither of L afoon’s pri or conv i ct i on s w as a vi ol entc r i m e. H e f

ur thera l l eged thati f

he w er e pr oper l y char ged unders ect i on 99- 19- 81, he w oul d nothave w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a j ury t r i al . L af oon cl ai m ed thathe w oul d have gone t o tr i al on a mansl aught erdef ens e, butbecaus e he w as bei ng char ged unders ect i on 99- 19- 83, ther e w as not hi ng t o be gai ned by goi ng t o tr i al . T he ci r cui tcourtf ound L af oon’ s pet i t i on unt i m el y, and, t i m e- barnotw i ths t andi ng, f ound thatL af

oon w as no tent i t l ed t o any r el i ef bas ed on the evi dence . DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 5 . “ W h e n rev iew in g a [c irc u it] co u rt’s d e n ial o r d ism iss a l o f a P C R m o tio n , [ap p e llate cou rt s] w i l l on l y d i sturb the [ci rcuit ] c o urt ’s factual f i nd i ng s i f they are cl earl y err on eou s; how ever , [ appel l at e court s ] r evi ew the [ ci r cui t ] court ’ s l egal concl us i ons undera de novo s t andar d of

r evi ew . ” F lo w e rs v . S ta te , 125 So. 3d 87, 88 ( ¶3) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( ci t i ng H u g h e s v . S ta te , 1 0 6 S o . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8 (¶4 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 )).

### 4

¶6. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 99 -39-5 ( S up p. 20 14 ) pr ov i des thata PC R m ot i on m us tbe f

i l ed w i thi n thr ee ye ar s af t erthe entry of

the j udgm entof

convi ct i on w hen a def endanthas pl eade d gui l ty. A n unt i m el y P C R m ot i on m ay be e xcept ed f r om the thr ee- year sta tu te o f lim itatio n s if th e m o v a n t ca n s h o w “ n e w e v id e n c e [th a t w a s] n o t a v a ilab le a t trial, an i nt erveni ng hi gher - courtdeci s i on , o r thatthe movanti s bei ng det ai ned on an e xpi r ed s ent ence . ” B lo u n t v. S ta te , 1 2 6 S o . 3 d 9 2 7 , 9 3 1 (¶ 1 3 ) ( M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 3 ); see al so M i ss. C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 5( 2) ( a) ( i ) . A ddi t i onal l y, error s af f ect i ng a def

endant ’ s f

undament al c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts a re e x c e p tio n s to th is tim e -b a r. B l ount , 1 2 6 S o . 3 d at 9 3 1 (¶ 1 3 ). B e c a u se th e c irc u it co u rt en ter e d its ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n in 2 0 0 2 , an d L a fo o n d id n o t file h i s P CR mo t i o n u n t i l 2 0 1 3 , La f o o n ’ s mo t i o n i s c l e a r l y u n t i me l y . Ho we v e r , La f o o n c l a i ms thatbeca us e hi s couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as i nef f ect i ve and vi ol at ed hi s f undamen t al c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , h is m o tio n is e x c e p te d fr o m th e tim e -b a r. ¶7 . “The [ M i s s i s s i pp i ] [ S] up r e me [ C] ou r t ha s he l d tha t c l a i ms of i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t ance of counse l . . . ar e i ndeed s ubj ectt o the pr ocedur al bar s . ” Sa lterv . S ta te , 64 So. 3d 514, 518 (¶14) (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2010) ( ci t i ng K irk v . S ta te , 7 9 8 S o . 2 d 3 4 5 , 3 4 6 (¶6 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). “[ M ] er el y r ai si ng the cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s urm ount the pr ocedur al bar , ” and thi s C our tmustr evi ew L af oon’ s i nef

f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m t o det erm i ne w hetheri ti s s uf f i ci entt o i nvoke the f

undament al - r i ght s exce pt i on. T h o m a s v . S ta te , 933 So. 2d 995, 997 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( ci t i ng B e v ille v . S ta te , 669 So. 2d 14, 17 ( M i s s . 1996) ) . W hen a de f endantcl ai m s thathi s couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as defect i ve, he “musts how thatcouns el ’ s per f orm ance w as def

i ci ent. . . [ and] thatthe

### 5

def i ci entper f

orm ance pr ej udi ced the def ens e. ” Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 466 U . S. 668, 687 ( 1984) . I n cas es w her e a de f endants eeks t o chal l enge the val i di ty of hi s gui l ty pl ea, the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas s t at ed, “I n order t o s at i s f y the pr ej udi ce r equi r ementof Str i ckland , the def

endantm us ts how thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf or c o u n s e l’ s e rr o rs , h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p le a d e d g u ilty a n d w o u ld h a v e in s is te d o n g o in g to tr ia l.” W ilso n v . S ta te , 81 So. 3d 1067, 1092 ( ¶42) ( M i s s . 2012) ( quot i ng Hi l lv. L ockh art , 47 4 U. S. 5 2 , 5 9 (1 9 8 5 )) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). ¶8 . L af

oon o f f e r s n o a r gu mento n a pp e a l a s t o how hi s couns el ’ s per f or m ance w as def i ci entand pr ej udi ced hi s def ense. L af

oon m er el y ci t es cas el aw w i thoutan expl anat i on as t o how the l aw appl i es t o t he f act s of thi s cas e. T he f

ol l ow i ng col l oquy t ook pl ace dur i ng L af oon’ s pl ea he ar i ng: Q . A ll righ t. N o w , the c o u rt h a s b e fo re it, a s I s tate d e a rlier , a P e tit io n to E n ter a P lea o f G u il ty t o th e crim e o f m u rde r as an ha b itu a l o ffen d er; i s thatcorr ect , M r . L af

oon? A . Y es, si r. * * * * Q . B efo re yo u si g n ed yo u r nam e to th is p eti ti o n , did y o u go ov e r it w ith youratt orney? A . Y es, si r. Q . D o y o u fe e l co m fo rta b le th a t y o u r a tto rn e y h a s e x p lain e d ev e ry th in g to you aboutw hatr i ght s you have thatyou ar e w ai vi ng orgi vi ng up by pl eadi ng gui l ty her e t oday? A . Y es, si r.

### Sectio n 9 9-1 9-8 3 w ou ld o nlyapp ly if o ne o f Laf o o n ’s prio r offen ses usedto 3 

### es ta bli sh hi s ha

bit ual -of fe nder st at us wa s a viol ent off ens e. 6 Q. Al l r i g h t . Di d y o u ra t t o rn e y a n s we ra n y q u e s t i o n s th a ty o u h a d o f h i m? A . Y es, si r. * * * * Q . A l l r i ght . D o you under s t and thati n pl eadi ng gui l ty t o the cr i m e of m ur deras an habi tual of f ender , you ar e admi t t i ng thatyou’ r e gui l ty of th e c rim e o f m u rd e r; d o y o u u n d e rsta n d th a t? A . Y es, si r. Q . H av e y o u b ee n m ad e a w are by yo u r att o rne y o f th e e lem en ts ne ce ssary to p rov e the crim e o f m u rde r? A . Y es, si r. Q . A n d are y o u sati sfi ed that y o u are g u il ty o f th at crim e o f m u rde r? A . Y es, si r. T h e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd th a t in d ica tes th a t L a fo o n ’s c o u n se l “tric k e d ” h im in to p lea d in g g u ilty , as L a fo o n c laim s o n a p p e a l. L a fo o n c laim s in h is P C R m o tio n th a t h a d h is couns el obj ect ed t o L af

oon bei ng char ged undersec t i on 99-19- 83, he w oul d nothave w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al . H ow ever , L af oon knew thathe w as bei ng char ged w i th f i r s t - degr ee m ur derby i nf

orm at i on bef

or e he pl eade d gui l ty, and bec aus e the puni s hm entf orf i r s t - degr ee m ur deri s l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent , i tw oul d have made no di f f er ence w hetherhe w as c har ged under sec ti on 99 -19-81 o r s ect i on 99 -19-83 b efor e he p l eaded gu i l ty. A l tho ug h the ci rcui tco u rt i ni t i al l y i ncorr ect l y appl i ed s ect i on 99-19- 83 bef or e Laf oon pl eade d gui l ty, the pr oper 3

### 7

a p p l i c a t i o n o f

s e c t i o n 9 9 - 1 9 - 8 1 wo u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n La f o o n r e c e i v i n g th e s a me s ent ence — thati s , l i f

e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutel i gi bi l i ty forpar ol e orpr obat i on. L af oon has nots how n thathi s counse l ’ s per f orm ance w as pr ej udi ci al . A ccor di ngl y, L af oon’ s cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el i s nots uf f i ci entt o i nvoke the f

undament al - r i ght s exce pt i on to th e tim e -b a r. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶ 9 . THE J UDGM EN T OF T HE M ARSHALL CO UNTY C I RCU I T COURT DI S M I S S I NG THE M OTI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S AF F I RM ED . AL L C OS TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO M ARS HALL COUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.