Opinion ID: 1828856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the trial court erred in forfeiting sixty days of moore's accrued earned time due to filing a frivolous motion.

Text: ¶ 24. In its order denying Moore's post-conviction-relief petition, the trial court found, inter alia, that the allegations contained in the petition were conclusory in nature and are without any factual basis. The Transcript of the guilty plea hearing clearly shows that the Petitioner entered a voluntary, intelligent plea. Therefore, the Court finds that the Petition is without merit and should be dismissed as frivolous. Upon making this finding and dismissing the post-conviction-relief petition, the trial court likewise ordered the Mississippi Department of Corrections to forfeit sixty days of Moore's accrued earned time pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 47-5-138 (Rev. 2004). ¶ 25. Section 47-5-138(3) states in pertinent part: (a) For the purposes of this subsection, final order means an order of a state or federal court that dismisses a lawsuit brought by an inmate while the inmate was in the custody of the Department of Corrections as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (b) On receipt of a final order, the department shall forfeit: (i) Sixty (60) days of an inmate's accrued earned time if the department has received one (1) final order as defined herein. ¶ 26. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-39-11(2) (Rev.2007) provides that in considering whether an inmate's post-conviction-relief petition should be dismissed, the trial court must consider the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case. The trial judge unquestionably could consider both the civil file in Moore's post-conviction-relief proceedings and the entire record in the criminal proceedings, including the transcript of the guilty-plea hearing, in determining not only the issue of the merits of Moore's post-conviction-relief petition, but also the issue of whether the petition was frivolous for the purpose of considering sanctions. From the record before us, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sanctioning Moore via a forfeiture of sixty days of accrued earned time. Stanley v. State, 904 So.2d 1127, 1133 (Miss.Ct.App.2004). The purpose of such forfeitures is to reduce frivolous filings on the part of incarcerated individuals, whether literate or illiterate, pro se or represented by counsel. Id. (citing Holt v. State, 757 So.2d 1088, 1090 (Miss.Ct.App.2000)). ¶ 27. We thus find this issue to be without merit.