Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-08-2024
Case Style:
Charles Richard Dobbins a/k/a Charles Dobbins a/k/a Richard Dobbins v. State of Mississippi
Case Number: 2023-CA-00562-COA
Judge: John H. Emfinger
Court: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Philip C. Hearn
Charles Cassidy Cole
Description: Jackson, MS criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant with filing a motion for post-conviction relief
Dobbins entered a guilty plea to “Secretly Photographing a Child under the age of
Sixteen (16) for Lewd Purposes” as charged in Count 1 of the indictment against him and
“Secretly Photographing for Lewd Purposes” as charged in Count 2. By separate sentencing
orders entered on September 6, 2019, Dobbins was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in
the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for Count 1 and to five
years in the custody of MDOC on Count 2, with all five years suspended. The sentence for
Count 2 was ordered to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for Count 1.
¶3.
Dobbins filed his first PCR motion on February 12, 2020. The circuit court entered
an order dismissing the motion on February 20, 2020. The circuit clerk’s docket does not
reflect that Dobbins appealed the dismissal of that motion.
¶4.
As noted above, Dobbins filed his second PCR motion on December 14, 2022. The
circuit court summarily dismissed it on April 13, 2023, finding that the motion was barred
as successive pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2020).
Further, the circuit court found that the motion was time-barred pursuant to section 99-39
5(2) (Rev. 2020) because it was not filed within three years of the entry of the sentencing
order.
¶5.
wrote:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In McConn v. State, 355 So. 3d 779, 782-83 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court
A circuit court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion “[i]f it plainly appears
from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings
in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief.” Miss. Code Ann.
§ 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2020). The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated that
summary “dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where it appears beyond a
doubt that the [movant] can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” State v. Santiago, 773 So. 2d 921, 924 (¶11)
(Miss. 2000) (quotation marks omitted). “Our review of the summary dismissal
of a PCR motion, a question of law, is de novo.” Nichols v. State, 265 So. 3d
1239, 1241 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Young v. State, 731 So. 2d 1120,
1122 (¶9) (Miss. 1999)).
2
ANALYSIS
¶6.
On appeal, Dobbins ignores the statutory bars and simply argues the merits of his
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Neither in his PCR motion before the trial court
nor here on appeal does Dobbins make any argument that one of the exceptions to the
statutory bars found in section 99-39-5(2) is applicable to his claim
Outcome:
Our review of the record reveals that the PCR motion at issue was successive. Further, the instant motion was filed more than three years after the final judgment and sentencing.
We find that Dobbins’ claim is statutorily barred.
AFFIRMED
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: