IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2016-CP-00511-COA LARSON WRIGHT APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/11/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. SMITH MURPHEY COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LARSON W RIGHT (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/20/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Larson W r ight’s p r o b a t i o n w a s revoked af ter h e was charged with p ossession of a f irearm by a convicted f

elon a nd aggravated a ssault while on post-release supervision (PRS). W r ight f iled a m otion f

or p o s t-conviction r elief (PCR) in the trial court arguing that his probation was unlawf

ully revoked. His m otion was denied and h e appeals t o this Court. Finding no error, we af

f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶2. In 2 008, W right entered into an Alford 1 p lea of guilty to the crim e of arm e d robbery

.

1 N o rth C a ro lin a v. A lfo rd , 4 0 0 U .S . 2 5 (1 9 7 0 ).He was sentenced to serve three y ears f ollowed by ten y ears of PRS with the f irst f ive y ears

r e p o r ting. In Novem

ber 2012, the State f

iled a petition to revoke W right’s PRS s e n t e n c e f ollowing W right’s arrest f or f elon in possession and a g gravated assault. The trial court held two r evocation hearings. At the f irst hearing, the court heard the testim o ny of an of f icer who heard shots, f

ollowed W r ight, p ulled him over, and discovered a gun s m elling of g unpowder in his glove box. W right also testi f i e d , asserting that the gun belonged t o his girlf riend. Following W right’s assertions that he was having dif f iculty getting his witnesses to attend the hearing, the court granted a continuance f or W r ight to produce additional w itnesses and purported exculpatory evidence. W right hired counsel and obtained as a witness the alleged victim

. At the second hearing, the victim testif ied that W r ight did shoot at him , but that the two were “cool” and he was considering dropping the charges to “help [ W right] out.” The court revoked all t en y ears of W right’s PRS. In 2016, W r ight f i led a m o tion in the trial court arguing that the revocation was illegal. T he trial court denied the m otion i n a detailed order. W r ight appeals. DISCUSSION ¶3. W h en reviewing a trial court’s denial o f a PCR m otion, we will r everse the judgm ent only if the court’s f

actual f indings are clearly erroneous ; h o wever, we will review legal conclusions de novo. Boyd v. State , 65 So. 3d 358, 360 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). ¶4. O n a p p e a l , Wright essentially argues that the revocation of his PRS operates a s a sentence f

or a crim e he h a s n o t y et been c o nvicted of —that is, a sentence f

o r the alleged crim es he was arrested f

or that t r i g g e r ed the revocation of his P RS. This is an i naccurate

2assertion. W right is currently serving the sentence he received in 2008 when he pled guilty

to arm ed robbery

. Revocation of probation does not require that the individual be c onvicted of the alleged crim inal activities that triggered the revocation; r ather, the standard is whether i t is m ore likely than not that the violation of the conditions and term s of PRS occurred. McCalpin v. State , 166 So. 3d 24, 26-27 (¶7) (Miss. 2013). ¶5. Here, the trial c ourt heard the testim ony of the victim that W r ight had a gun and shot at him , as well as the testim ony of the of f icer w h o heard the shots a nd shortly thereaf ter discovered W right w ith a gun sm e lling of gunpowder in his car. This evidence was suf f icient to satisf y the “m ore likely

than not” standard of

proof

. CONCLUSION ¶6. The trial court did not err in rejecting W right’s argum ent t h a t h i s p r o b a t i o n w a s unlawf ully r evoked. W r ight is n o t serving a sentence f or a crim e he w as not convicted of , and suf f i cient evidence was presented f or the trial c ourt to determ i ne that it was m ore likely than not that W right violated the term s of his PRS. ¶7. THE JUDGMENT OF THE TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY CIRCUIT C OURT, S E COND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, D ENYING THE MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELI E F I S A FFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS A PPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO TALLAHATCHIE COUNTY. L E E , C . J . , I R

V I N G A N D G R I F F I S , P . J J . , B A R NES, I SHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

3