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 4 4 7 - CO A C H A R L E S D O U G L A S O W E N S , II A /K /A CH ARLES DO UG LAS OW ENS A/ K/ A CH ARLES O W E N S A / K /A C H A R L E S D . O W E N S , II AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 01/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. L I S A P
. DODS ON CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: CH AR LE DO UG LAS O W ENS I I ( 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 : L ADONN A C
. HOL L AND 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 : DEN I ED PETI TI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 28/ 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 L E E , C . J. , I SH E E A N D JA M E S, JJ. J AM ES , J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C har l es D ougl as O w ens I I pl ed gui l ty i n the H arr i s on C ounty C i r cui t C our t , Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ct , t o one c ountof a r m ed r obbery a nd one c ountof a ggr avat ed as s aul t . O w ens
w as s ent ence d t o serve f or ty year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons (M D O C )
. O w ens has had tw o pr i orpet i t i ons f orpos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef ( PC R ) deni ed by the tr i al court . O n both occa s i ons , O w ens appea l ed and thi s C our taf f i r m ed. See O w e n s v . S ta te , 1 7 S o . 3 d 6 2 8 ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ); O w e n s v . S ta te , 996 So. 2d 85

### The de tail ed f ac tual hi story pe rt aining to Owens ’s ar re st and c onvic tionhas be en 1 

### fu ll yr ecited inour prio r decisio ns affirmin g th e den ial of O wen s’s petitio n fo r PC R. Se e Owens , 17 So . 3dat 63 0-6 31 (¶¶2-3 ); Owens , 99 6 S o. 2d at 87- 90 (¶ ¶ 3- 17 )
. Th e r e f

ore , we recite on ly th ose facts p ertinent to th is app eal. 2 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008)
. O w ens has f i l ed a thi r d PC R pe t i t i on a s s ert i ng thathi s convi ct i on and
s ent ence vi ol at e the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy. O w ens ’ s pet i t i on al s o as s ert ed that i s s ues r ai s ed i n hi s pr evi ous PC R pet i t i on s s houl d be r evi s i t ed i n l i ghtof i nt erveni ng deci s i ons of

the U ni t ed St at es S upr eme C our tand the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our t . T he tr i al
c o u rtd e n ie d th e p e titio n a n d O w e n s n o w a p p e a ls . F in d in g n o e rr o r, w e a ff ir m . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY 1 ¶2
. O n M ay 20, 2002, a H a rr i s on County g r a nd j ury i nd i c t e d Ow e ns on on e c ount of
a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d o n e co u n t of ag g ra v a ted as sa u lt. O w e n s e n ter e d v o lu n tar y p lea s o f g u ilty to b o th co u n ts o n F eb rua ry 4 , 20 0 3
. O n M arc h 17 , 20 0 3 , O w en s w as se n tenc ed t o th irty year s f ora r med r ob be ry a nd t e n ye a r s f ora gg r a va t e d a s s a ul t , wi th the s e nt e nc es t o run
con secut i vely f

or a t otal of f

orty y ears i n the cust od y o f the M D O C
. O w ens fi l ed a p ro se
m o ti o n for rec o n side rati o n o n M arc h 20 , 20 0 3
. T h e fo ll o w ing w ee k , O w en s’s att o rne y -ofr ecor d f i l ed a mot i on f

orr econs i der at i on or , i n the al t ernat i ve, t o w i thdr aw hi s gui l ty pl ea, and on A pr i l 4 , 2 00 3, Ow e ns f i l e d a p r o s e mot i on t o w i thd r a w h i s p l e a . O n Fe brua ry 2, 2 0 0 6 , n ea rl y three ye ars l ater, O w en s’s ne w co u n sel fi led a P C R p eti ti o n arg u ing that there
w er e mi t i gat i ng f

act or s that , i f

know n, w oul d have decr eas ed O w ens ’ s s ent ence ; hi s pl ea w as i nvol unt ar i l y gi ven; and hi s pl ea s houl d be w i thdr aw n, as ther e w as an agr eementbetw een the c ir cu itco u rt , the S tat e, an d O w en s a s to h is sen tenc e. O n Ja n u ary 3 , 2 0 0 7 , the tr ial co u rt

### 3

deni ed the 2006 PC R pet i t i on and O w ens appea l ed. W hi l e thatdeci s i on w as pendi ng on ap p ea l, O w en s fi led a p ro se m o ti o n for c lari fi ca ti o n o f his sen tenc e stati n g tha t th e M D O C ’s pos i t i on on hi s par ol e el i gi bi l i ty contr adi ct ed the i nt entof the tr i al court . T hi s C our taf f i r m ed the tr i al c our t ’ s deni al of O w ens ’ s 2006 PC R pet i t i on. See O w ens , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d at 94 (¶3 3 ). I n s o doi ng, w e not ed thatther e w as no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatthe tr i al courthad rul ed
o n O w e n s ’s th re e p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n s . See i d. a t 8 9 (¶ 1 3 ). ¶3. O w ens pet i t i oned the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our tf ora w r i tof

m andamus, att empt i ng t o compel the tr i al courtt o t ake a ct i on on thos e mot i ons . O n A ug ust1 1, 2008, w hi l e the pet i t i on f ora w r i tof

m andamus w as pendi ng, the tr i al courtdeni ed O w ens ’ s pr o s e mot i on fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n ; h is a tto rn e y ’s m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , to
w i t hdr aw hi s p l e a ; a nd Ow e ns ’ s p r o s e mot i on t o w i thd r a w h i s p l e a . The mot i on f or cl ar i f i cat i on of O w ens ’ s s ent ence w as de ni ed by a s epar at e or dere nt er ed on A ugus t11, 2008. U pon entry of

thos e or der s , t he M i s s i s s i ppi S upr eme C our t , on A ugus t15, 2008, di s m i s s ed O w en s’s p eti ti o n for a w ri t of m an d am u s as m o o t. O w en s th en ap p ea led the cir cu itco u rt ’s d en ial o f his 2 0 0 3 m o ti o n s an d the m o ti o n for c lari fi ca ti o n o f his sen tenc e, an d this C o u rt
a ff ir m e d
. See O w ens , 1 7 S o . 3 d a t 6 3 5 (¶ 2 0 ). ¶ 4
. U n d e ter re d , o n Ju n e 7 , 2 0 1 3 , O w e n s filed an o th e r p e tit io n fo r P C R , as se rtin g th a t h is convi ct i on viol at ed the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy. O w ens al s o as s ert ed thathe
r ece i ved i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , a nd thathi s pl ea w as i nvol unt ary a nd i ts houl d be
r evi s i t ed. O n A ugus t1, 2013, the tr i al c our tde ni ed O w ens ’ s pe t i t i on f orPC R , f

i ndi ng that O w en s’s co n v ict ion d id n o t violate the p rohi bit i on againstd o u b le j eo p ard y , an d that O w en s’s

### 4

r emai ni ng cl ai m s w er e pr ocedur al l y barr ed. O w ens now appea l s , r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n f i ndi ng thatO w ens ’ s doubl e- j eopar dy c l ai m w as
w ith o u t m erit ; and (2) w h ethe r th e tri al co u rterred i n fi n d ing th at O w en s’s prior clai m s w ere p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . W e fi n d n o e rr o r a n d a ff ir m . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5
. W h e n re v iew in g a trial c o u rt’s d e n ia l o r d ism iss a l o f a P C R p e tit io n , w e w ill o n ly di s turb the tr i al court ' s f actual f i ndi ngs i f

they ar e cl ear l y err oneous ; how ever , w e r evi ew the tr ia l c o u rt ' s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . H u g h e s v . S ta te , 106 So. 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 3 8 (¶ 4 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 2 ). DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t h e tri al court err ed i n f i ndi ng t hat O w ens ’ s doub l ejeo p a rd y claim w a s w it h o u t m er it . ¶6. O w ens ar gues that he w as s ubj ect ed t o doubl e j eopar dy beca us e he w as i ndi ct ed f or both aggr avat ed as s aul tand arm ed r obbery bas ed on the s ame se tof f act s . T hus , O w ens
a rg u e s th a t h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e fo r a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt co n stitu te
m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts , v io la tin g h is c o n s titu tio n a l p ro te c tio n s a g a in s t d o u b le je o p a rd y . W e di s agr ee. ¶7
. W e fi rstno te th at O w en s’s p rese n t p eti ti o n is ti m e-b arred
. P u rsua n t to th e U n if o rm P o st-C o n v ictio n C o llate ra l R e lief A c t (U P C C R A ): A m ot i on f

orr el i ef underthi s art i cl e s hal l be made w i thi n thr ee ( 3) year s af t er th e t i me i n wh i c h th e p e t i t i o n e r ' s d i r e c ta p p e a l i s r u l e d u p o n b y th e S u p r e me C our tof M i s s i s s i ppi or , i n cas e no appeal i s t aken, w i thi n t hr ee ( 3) year s af t er the t i m e f

ort aki ng an appe al f

r om the j udgm entof

c onvi ct i on ors ent ence has

### 5

expi r ed, ori n cas e of

a gui l ty pl ea, w i thi n thr ee ( 3) year s af t erentry of

the j udgm entof

convi ct i on. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -39 -5(2 ) (Su p p . 2 0 1 4 ). H ere , O w en s p lead ed g u il ty to a rm ed rob b ery and aggr avat ed as s aul t , and the j udgm entof convi ct i on w as ent er ed on M ar ch 17, 2003. T he pr es entPC R pet i t i on w as f i l ed on J une 7, 2 01 3, m ore t han t en yea r s af t erthe entry of

the ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n . T h u s , O w e n s ’s p re s e n t p e titio n fo r P C R is tim e -b a rr e d
. ¶8
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas held t hat “e r r or s af f ect i ng f undament al
cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ar e exc ept ed f rom t he pr ocedur al bar s of the U PC C R A
. ” R ow land v. S ta te , 42 So. 3d 503, 507 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2010)
. Li kew i s e, ours upr eme cour thas hel d thatthe ri g h t to b e fr e e fr o m d o u b le je o p a rd y is a fu n d a m e n ta l r ig h t. I d. a t5 0 8 ( ¶ 1 4 )
. T h e r e f

o r e , we
a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f O w e n s ’s c la im
. ¶9. “D oubl e j eopar dy cons i s t s of thr ee s epar at e cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i ons : ( 1) pr ot ect i on
a g a in st a se c o n d p ro se c u tio n fo r th e sa m e o ffe n se a fte r a c q u itt a l, (2 ) p ro tec tio n a g a in st a
se c o n d p ro se c u tio n fo r th e sa m e o ffe n se a fte r c o n v ictio n , an d (3 ) p ro tec tio n ag a in st m u lti p le puni s hm ent s f

orthe s ame of

f ens e. ” R o w la n d

v . S ta te , 98 S o. 3d 10 32 , 10 3 7 (¶1 0 ) ( M i ss. 2012) ( quot i ng P o w e ll v. S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1069, 1074 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . 2001) ). H er e, i ti s the th ird p ro tec tio n th a t is a t issu e : w h e th e r O w e n s’s rig h t to b e fre e fro m m u lti p le p u n ish m e n ts f orthe s ame of

f ens e w as vi ol at ed w hen he w as convi ct ed of aggr avat ed as s aul tand arm ed
r obbery ar i s i ng f

r om the s ame cr i m i nal ac t . T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas hel d that “[ i ] n det erm i ni ng w hetherdoubl e- j eopar dy prot ect i on appl i es , w e appl y t he t es tenunci at ed by the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n B l ockbur gerv. U ni t ed Stat es , 2 84 U
. S
. 2 99, 304

### 6

( 1932)
. ” R ow land , 98 So. 3d at1037 ( ¶10) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he B l ockb urger C our thel d: [ T ] he ap pli cable rule i s that, w here the sam e actor transact i o n c o n sti tut es a v io latio n o f tw o d is tin c t sta tu to ry p ro v isio n s, th e tes t to b e a p p lied to de t e r mi ne w he the rthe r e a r e tw o o f f e ns e s oron l y o ne , i s w he the re ach pr ovi s i on r equi r es pr oof of a f actw hi ch the otherdoes not. . . . A s i ngl e ac t m ay be a n off

ens e agai ns ttw o s t atut es ; and i f eac h s t atut e r equi r es pr oof of an addi t i onal f

actw hi ch the otherdoe s not , a n a cqui t t al orconvi ct i on underei ther s t atut e does notexemptthe def endantf r om pr os ecut i on and puni s hm entunder the o ther. I d. ( quot i ng B l ockbur

ger , 284 U
. S. at304)
. T hus , “[ e] ven though ther e may be a s ubs t ant i al
over l ap i n the pr oof

s uppor t i ng the convi ct i ons of the di f f er entcr i m es , the B l ockbur gert est is m e t w h e re e a c h o ff e n s e re q u ir e s p ro o f o f a n e le m e n t n o t n e c e s s a ry to th e o th e r.” G re e n w o o d

v . S ta te , 744 So. 2d 767, 771 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng B a n n iste r v . S ta te , 731 So. 2d 583, 586 ( ¶12) (M i s s . 1999))
. Fur therm or e, w e have hel d that“[ a] cr i m i nal def endant
m ay be pr os ecut ed f

ormore than one of

f ens e thatar i s es f

r om a s i ngl e s etof

f act s w her e ea ch
o ff e n s e re q u ir e s p ro o f o f a d if fe re n t e le m e n t. T

h o m a s v . S ta te , 930 So. 2d 1264, 1266 ( ¶8) ( M i ss. C t . A pp . 2 005) ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 750 So. 2d 552, 563 ( ¶44) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1 9 9 9 ))
. ¶10. H er e, the gr and j ury r eturned a tw o- counti ndi ctm enta gai ns tO w ens . C ountI char ged O w ens w i th arm ed r obbery pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97-3- 79 ( R ev. 2001) , w hi ch def

i ned the cr i m e as : “ [ F] el oni ous l y t ak[ i ng] ora t t empt [ i ng] t o t ake f r om the per s on orf

r om the pr es ence the per s onal pr operty of a nothera nd a gai ns thi s w i l l by vi ol ence t o hi s per s on orby put t i ng s uch per s on i n f earof i m m edi at e i nj ury t o hi s per s on by exhi bi t i on of a dea dl y w eapon[
. ] ” C ountI of O w ens ’ s i nd i ct m ents t at ed thathe “di d w i l l f ul l y,

### 7

unl aw f ul l y and f

el oni ous l y t ake, s t eal [ , ] and ca rry aw ay f r om the per s on and i n the pr es ence
an d ag ains t th e w il l of R ale ig h R icha rd C arter, O n e T h o u san d F o u r H u n d red D o ll ars ($ 1 ,4 0 0 .0 0 )[ ,] . . . th e p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y o f [ C a rt e r], b y v io le n c e to th e p e rs o n o f . . . [ C a rt e r], by the exhi bi t i on of

a dea dl y w eapon[ , ]
. . . a handgun[
. ] ” Li kew i s e, C ountI I i ndi ct ed O w ens f oraggr avat ed as s aul tp urs uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 3- 7( 2) ( R ev. 20 01 ), w hich defi ned the cri m e of agg ravat ed assaultas: ( a ) a t t e mpt [ i ng ] t o c a us e s e r i ou s b od i l y i nj ury t o a no the r , o rc a us [ i ng] s uch i nj ury purpos el y, know i ngl y[ , ] orr eckl es s l y underthe ci r cumst ance s m ani f es t i ng extr em e indi f

f er ence t o the val ue of hum an l i f

e; or( b) a ttem p t[i n g ] to c a u se o r p u rp o se ly o r k n o w in g ly c a u s[in g ] bo d ily in ju ry to anotherw i th a dea dl y w eapon orotherm eans l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath or s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm [.] C ountI I of

the i ndi ctm ents t at ed thatO w ens “unl aw f ul l y, f el oni ou s l y, w i l l f

ul l y[ , ] and p u rp o se ly , ca u se [d ] b o d ily inju ry to [C a rte r], b y sh o o tin g . . . [C a rte r] i n th e lef t ch e st w ith
a d e a d ly w e a p o n [,] . . . a h a n d g u n [.] ¶11. I t i s cl ear that the tw o cr i m es f or w hi ch O w ens w as i nd i ct ed and t o w hic h he pl ed gui l ty requi red proof

of an el ementw hi ch the otherdi d not
. T he arm ed- r obbery char ge
r equi r ed the St at e t o prove t hatO w ens t ook t he per s onal prope r ty of Car t er ; the aggr avat ed
as s aul tchar ge di d not
. T he aggr avat ed- as s aul tchar ge r equi r ed the St at e t o pr ove thatO w ens
caus ed bodi l y i nj ury t o C art erby s hoot i ng C art er ; the arm ed- r obbery char ge di d not
. St at ed di f f er ent l y, O w ens coul d have be en f ound gui l ty o f ar m ed r obbery w i thouthavi ng s hot C art er ; l i kew i s e, O w ens coul d have been f ound gui l ty of aggr avat ed as s aul tw i thoutt aki ng C a rt e r’ s p ro p e rt y . See Thom as , 930 So. 2d at1266 ( ¶9)
. A ccor di ngl y, thi s i s s ue i s w i thout

### 8

m e ri t. I I . W h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Ow e n s ’ s p r i o r c l a i ms wer e pr oc e dur al l y ba r r e d. ¶12. O w ens next ar gues that hi s pr i or cl ai m chal l engi ng the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea a nd hi s cl ai m thathi s counse l w as i nef f ect i ve shoul d be re vi s i t ed. I n O w ens ’ s F ebruary 2, 2006 PC R pet i t i on, O w ens cl ai m ed thathe detr i m ent al l y r el i ed on the St at e’ s r ecomm endat i on of a tw enty- f

i ve- years ent ence w hen he a gr eed t o pl ead gui l ty. O w ens as s ert ed thatthe tr i al
c ou r tf a i l e d t o a dv i s e hi m t ha ti tw a s no tbo un d b y the St a t e ’ s s e nt e nc i ng r e c omm e nd at i on and that O w ens could be sent enced t o serve the st atutory m axim um s entence . F u rt h er, O w ens cl ai m ed thathi s tr i al counsel fai l ed t o i nf orm hi m of

the cons equenc es of

hi s pl ea. T hus , O w ens cl ai m s thathi s gui l ty pl ea w as noti nt el l i gent l y, vol unt ar i l y, and f r eel y gi ven b e c a u s e th e tr i a l c o u r ts e n t e n c e d h i m t o a t e r m o f y e a r s i n e x c e s s o f

th e S t a t e 's
r ecomm endat i on and thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve. ¶13. A s t o the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s pl ea, thi s C our t has al r eady addr es s ed thi s i s s ue i n our pr i oropi ni on. Fol l ow i ng the tr i al court ' s deni al of O w ens ' s February 2, 2006 PC R pet i t i on, th is C o u rt a ffirm e d , fin d in g : T he tr ans cr i ptf

r om O w ens ' s pl ea hear i ng c l ear l y s how s thathe t es t i f i ed under o a th th a t h e h a d re a d a n d u n d e rsto o d h is g u ilty p lea p e tit io n , w h ich sta ted in pert i nentpartthatthe tr i al j udge w as notr equi r ed t o f ol l ow the s ent enci ng r ecomm endat i on of

the St at e and coul d s ent ence O w ens t o a ny t erm w i thi n the s t atut ory l i m i t s . T he tr ans cr i ptal s o s how s thatO w ens w as t ol d the maxi m um and mi ni m um s ent ence s thathe coul d r ece i ve f orthe cr i m es w i th w hi ch he w as char ged. O w ens af

f i r m ed t o the tr i al j udge thathe w as s at i s fi ed w i th the advi ce and couns el of

hi s a t t orney. I m por t ant l y, the r ecor d s how s thatO w ens w as i nfor m ed of

hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s thathe w as w ai vi ng by pl eadi ng gu i l ty. O w ens t old the tr i al cou rtthat he un derst oo d thathe w as w ai ving tho se

### 9

r i ght s . O w ens s i gned the pet i t i on t o pl ead gui l ty and t ol d the tr i al courtthat h e w a s in fa c t g u ilty o f th e tw o c h a rg e s. W e fin d th a t O w e n s h a s fa iled to carry hi s bur den of

pr oof t o s how thathi s pl ea w as notvol unt ar i l y, in tellig e n tly , an d k n o w in g ly g iv e n . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. O w ens , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d a t 9 4 (¶ 3 2 ). ¶14. N everthel es s , O w ens’s p res ent pet i t i on is p rocedu ral l y barr ed by t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s etforth i n s ect i on 99- 39- 5( 2) ( a) ( i i )
. L i kew i s e, O w ens has f i l ed pr i orpet i t i ons fo r P C R , in w h ich th e se iss u e s w e re a d d re ss e d . T h e U P C C R A p ro h ib its su c c e ss iv e a ttem p ts t o o btai n rel i ef, providi ng : “[ A ] ny order di sm i ssi ng the p et i t i on er' s m oti on or oth erw i se denyi ng r el i ef

underthi s art i cl e i s a f i nal judgm ent and s hal l be conc l us i ve unt i l r ever s ed. Its h a ll b e a b a r t o a s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e m o ti o n u n d e r t h is a rt ic le .” M is s . C o d e . A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 3 (6 ) (S u p p . 2 0 1 4 ). T h u s O w e n s’s p re se n t p e tit io n is b a rre d a s a s u c c e s s iv e w rit. H ow ever , both s ect i on 99- 39- 5 a nd s ect i on 99- 39- 23 pr ovi de thatan i nt erveni ng deci s i on of th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt o r th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt w h ich w o u ld a d v e rse ly af f ectthe out come of

a convi ct i on ors ent ence i s an exc ept i on t o the r es pect i ve pr ocedur al b a rs . See § 9 9-39-5(2)( a)( i i ) ( “E xcep t ed fr om this three- year st atute of l i m i t at i on s ar e tho se
cas es i n w hi ch the pet i t i on er can dem on s tr at e . . . [ t ] hatther e has been a n i nt erveni ng deci s i on of

the Supr eme C our tof

e i therthe St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi orthe U ni t ed St at es w hi ch
w oul d have a ctual l y adver s el y af f ect ed the out come of

hi s c onvi ct i on ors ent ence [
. ] ”) ; § 99- 39- 23( 6) ( “[ E ] xcept ed f r om thi s pr ohi bi t i on ar e thos e ca s es i n w hi ch the pet i t i on ercan demonstr at e . . . thatther e has be en an i nt erveni ng de ci s i on of the Supr eme C our tof

ei ther the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi or the U ni t ed St at es w hi ch w oul d have a ctual l y adver s el y af f ect ed

### Padi ll a f ac ed deport ationp ursuant to 8 U. S.C. § 1227(a)( 2)( B)( i) (2012) , whi ch 2 

### provi des : “ Any al ie n who at any tim e a ft er

admis si on has bee n convi ct ed of a vi olati on of (or a c onspira cy or

att em pt to viol at e) any l aw or regul ation of a St at e, theUnit ed St at es or a f ore ign country re lating to a c ontroll ed s ubst anc e . . . , other than a s ingl e of

fe nseinvolving poss es si on for

one' s own us e of

30 grams or l es s of

mari juana, is deporta

ble .” 10 th e o u tco m e o f h is c o n v ictio n [.] ” ). O w e n s n o w a rg u e s th a t h is c laim s s h o u ld b e re v isited in l i ghtof i nt erveni ng deci s i ons by the U ni t ed S t at es Supr eme C our tand the M i s s i s s i ppi S u p re m e C o u rt . ¶ 1 5
. “ T h e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g th a t n o p ro c e d u ra l b a r e x is ts fa lls sq u a re ly o n th e p e titio n e r.” C o sn e r v . S ta te , 111 So. 3d 111, 113 ( ¶13) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng C ra w fo rdv . S ta te , 8 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 2 (¶ 7 ) ( M is s . 2 0 0 3 ))
. ¶16. O w ens f

i r s tcl ai m s t hat t he U nit ed S t at es S up r eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n P adi l la v. Kentucky , 5 5 9 U. S
. 3 5 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) , wh i c h i n v o l v e s a n i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m, is a n in te rv e n in g d e c is io n th a t w o u ld a d v e rs e ly a ff e c t th e o u tc o m e o f h is c o n v ic tio n . W e d is a g re e . ¶17. I n P a d illa , the pet i t i oner , Padi l l a, a nati ve o f H on du ras w ho had been a l aw f ul perm anen tres i den tof the U n it ed S tat es f or m ore than forty y ears , faced dep ort at i on as a
res u ltof his plea d ing gu il ty t o th e tr an sp o rt ati o n of a l arg e am o u n t o f m arij u an a in h is tr act or - tr ai l eri n the St at e of K entucky. Id
. at359. Padi l l a al l eged thathi s t r i al counse l not

2 onl y f ai l ed t o di s cus s the pos s i bi l i ty of deport at i on as a r es ul tof hi s gui l ty pl ea, butcl ai m ed thathi s att orney t ol d hi m thath e “d i d no th ave t o w orry abouti m m i gr at i on s t atus s i nce he

### Strick land v . Was hington , 4 66 U
. S. 6 68 ( 19 84 )
. I n orde r to pre vai lo n acl ai m of 3 

### ine ff ec tive a ss is tanceof

c ounse l, a

de fe ndant

must s how ( 1) that

couns el ' s pe rf

orm anc e wa s deficient and(2) th at the d eficient p erforman ce preju dicedthe d efense. Id. at 687. 11 had bee n i n the country so long
. ” Id
. A ppl yi ng Str i ckland , the Supr eme C our thel d that 3 “[ a] cce pt i ng hi s al l egat i ons as true, Padi l l a has s uf f i ci ent l y a l l eged cons t i tut i onal def i ci ency to sa ti sfy th e firstp ron g o f Str i ckland
. ” I d. at369. T he C our tnot ed: In th e in sta n t ca se , the term s o f th e rele v a n t i m m ig ra tio n sta tu te a re su c c in c t, c l e a r , a n d e x p l i c i ti n d e f i n i n g th e r e m o v a l c o n s e q u e n c e f o rP a d i l l a 's convi ct i on. . . . Padi l l a' s couns el coul d have e as i l y det erm i ned thathi s pl ea w oul d m ake hi m el i gi bl e f ordeport at i on s i m pl y f

r om r eadi ng the t ext of

the sta tu te . . . . In ste a d , P a d ill a ' s c o u n se l p ro v id e d h im fa lse a ss u ra n c e th a t h is c o n v ictio n w o u ld n o t re su lt i n h is r e m o v a l f ro m th is c o u n try . T h is is n o t a h a rd c a se in w h ich to fin d d e fic ien c y : T h e c o n se q u e n c e s o f P a d ill a ' s p lea c o u ld eas i l y be det erm i ned f

r om r eading t he r emoval s t atut e, hi s deport at i on w as p re su m p tiv e ly m a n d a to ry , an d h is c o u n se l' s a d v ice w a s in c o rre c t. I d. a t 3 6 8 -6 9 . T h e C o u rt re m a n d e d , n o tin g : “ W h e th e r P a d ill a is e n tit led to re lief o n h is c laim
w i l l de pend on w hetherhe ca n s at i s f y Str i ckland 's s econd pr ong, pr ej udi ce, a mat t erw e l eave t o the K entucky court s t o cons i deri n the f i r s ti ns t ance . ” I

d. at369. ¶18. W e f

i nd thatthe dec i s i on i n P a d illa is n o t an alog o u s to the fac ts h ere . T h e ca se h ere do e s n oti nv ol ve d e po r t a t i on , a nd the d e c i s i on i n P adi l la d id n o t an n o u n c e a n e w ru le reg ard ing ineffec ti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel; instead , itm ere ly co n ti n u ed the C o u rt ’s l ongs t andi ng adher ence t o Str i ckland . W e fin d th a t th is d e c isio n w o u ld n o t “h a v e a c tu a lly af f ect ed” the out come of

O w ens ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence as r equi r ed by sec t i on 99- 39- 5 (2 )( a )( ii) a n d s e c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -2 3 (6 ). ¶19. O w ens nextcl ai m s thatthi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Sa lterv. S ta te , 64 S o. 3d 51 4 (M i ss.

### 12

C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ), is a n in ter v e n in g d e c isio n th a t w o u ld a d v e rse ly a ffe c t th e o u tco m e o f h is
c o n v ic tio n . Sa l t er c o n c e rn e d a c laim th a t S a lter r e c e iv e d e rro n e o u s a d v ice fro m b o th h is att orney and t he tr i al courtconce rni ng hi s el i gi bi l i ty f orpar ol e. T hi s C our tf ound that S a lter’ s p e tit io n w a s b a rre d a s a su c c e ss iv e w rit, s tatin g : “ H a d S a lter ra ise d th is is su e in h is f i r s tpet i t i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on col l at er al r el i ef , i tappea r s thathe w oul d have be en ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng. . . . H ow ever , Sal t erdi d notr ai s e the i s s ue i n hi s f i r s tpet i t i on. I ns t ead, he r ai s es i tf

orthe f i r s tt i m e i n thi s hi s s econd pe t i t i on. ” Id . O w e n s m isre a d s th is
s t at ementcl ai m i ng thathe di d r ai s e thi s i s s ue i n hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on, butdi d notr ece i ve an
e v id e n tia ry h e a rin g . T h u s, O w e n s d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th is d e c isio n w o u ld h a v e a c tu a lly
a ffec ted h is co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e, bu t m ere ly states that h e w as d en ied a n ev iden ti ary hear i ng. A s al r eady s t at ed, the deni al s of O w ens ’ s pr i orPC R pe t i t i ons ha ve bee n af f i r m ed by thi s C our t . Fur therm or e, the pet i t i oner i n Sal t erpr ovi ded the s t at ement s of thr ee
w it n e s s e s in s u p p o rto f h is c la im
. S e e id
. a t5 1 6 ( ¶ 8 )
. Owe n s h a s n o tp r o v i d e d h i s o wn af f i davi t , m uch l es s thatof a w i tnes s . T hi s C our thas hel d that“i f a def endantal l eges he w as gi ven err oneous advi ce by hi s att orney as t o hi s el i gi bi l i ty f or t rus ty earned t i m e and that
e rr o n e o u s a d v ic e g o e s u n c o rr e c te d , a n d h e p ro v id e s e v id e n c e o th e r th a n h is o w n s ta te m e n t[,]

. . . he i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng. ” S y lve ste r v . S ta te , 113 So. 3d 618, 623 ( ¶19) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013)
. I n af f i r m i ng the deni al of

O w ens ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on, thi s C our tf ound that“[ t ] he tr ans cr i ptf

r om O w ens ' s pl ea hear i ng c l ear l y s how s thathe t es t i f i ed underoath that he had r ead and under s t ood hi s gui l ty pl ea pet i t i on, w hi ch st at ed i n per t i nentpartthatthe tr i al ju d g e w a s n o t re q u ire d to fo llo w th e se n ten c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e S tate a n d c o u ld

### 13

s e nt e nc e Ow e ns t o a ny t e r m w i thi n the s t a tut ory l i m i t s . ” O w ens , 99 6 S o . 2 d at 94 (¶3 2 ). T hus a ny e rr on e ou s a dv i c e tha tO w e ns may h a ve r e c e i ve d was c orr e c t e d d ur i ng hi s pl ea hear i ng. W e f

i nd t hatt he deci s i on i n Sal t erwo u l d n o t“ h a v e a c tu a l l y a f f e c t e d ” th e o u t c o me of O w ens ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence as r equi r ed by s ect i on 99- 39- 5( 2) ( a) ( i i ) and s ect i on 99- 3 9 -2 3 (6 ). ¶20. Fi nal l y, O w ens cl ai m s thatthe U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Missouri
v. Fr ye , 132 S. C t . 1399 ( 2012) , i s an i nt erveni ng deci s i on thatw oul d adver s el y af f ectthe out come of

hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence . T he i s s ue i n Fr ye w as w hetherdef

ens e couns el has an af f i r m at i ve duty t o comm uni cat e the t erm s of a f orm al of f ert o acc epta pl ea on t erm s and
c o n d itio n s th a t m a y r e s u lt in a le s s e r s e n te n c e o r a c o n v ic tio n o n a le s s e r c h a rg e . See id
. at 1 4 0 8 . T h e re , the S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld tha t “[a ]s a g e n e ra l ru le, d e fe n se co u n se l ha s th e d u ty t o comm uni cat e f

orm al of f er s f r om the pr os ecut i on t o a cce pta pl ea on t erm s and condi t i ons thatm ay be f

avor abl e t o the ac cus ed. ” Id
. O w en s’s case do es n o t i n v o lve O w en s’s co u n sel’s f ai l ur e t o comm uni cat e a f orm al of f erf r om the St at e. Ther ef

or e, the hol di ng i n Fr

ye w o u ld h a v e n o im p a c t o n O w e n s ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶21. O w ens has fai l ed t o demonstr at e that hi s pr es ent pet i t i on f or PC R i s exemptf

r om
e ith e r th e thr e e -y e a r sta tu te o f li m itatio n s se t fo rth in se c tio n 9 9 -3 9 -5 , o r th e su c c e ss iv e -w rit b ar p rov ided sec ti o n 9 9 -39 -23
. A cc o rdin g ly, th is issue i s w ith o u t m erit , an d the tri al co u rt ’s d e n ia l o f O w e n s ’s p e titio n fo r P C R is a ff ir m e d
. ¶ 2 2
. THE J UDGM EN T OF T HE CI RCUI T CO URT O F HARR I S ON CO UNTY DE NYI NG THE P ET I TI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RELI 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 HARR I S ON COUNT Y.

### 14

LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW ELL AND F AI R, J J . , CONCUR. I RVI NG, P . J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND I N T HE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.