Devantae Moore a/k/a Devantae Antonio Moore a/k/a Devantae A. Moore v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 2024-CP-00150-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-CP-00150-COA

DEVANTAE MOORE A/K/A DEVANTAE APPELLANT ANTONIO MOORE A/K/A DEVANTAE A. MOORE

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/12/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. STANLEY ALEX SOREY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JASPER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DEVANTAE MOORE (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 01/21/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., LAWRENCE AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On May 23, 2023, Devantae Antonio Moore filed a “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside

Plea Recommendation” in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Mississippi. The circuit court

summarily dismissed Moore’s claim for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) on January

12, 2024. Moore appealed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On August 17, 2017, Moore pled guilty to gratification of lust pursuant to Mississippi

Code Annotated section 97-5-23(1) (Supp. 2015). The “Final Judgment and Sentence of the

Court” was entered on that same date. Moore was sentenced to a term of fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with eight years to serve, followed by

seven years of post-release supervision.

¶3. Moore’s first PCR motion was filed on December 23, 2019. An order denying his

claim for relief was entered on February 7, 2020. On September 4, 2020, Moore filed a notice

of appeal. By an en banc order of this Court entered on September 9, 2021, Moore’s appeal

was dismissed in appellate case 2020-TS-01004-COA as untimely filed.

¶4. In his present PCR motion, Moore claims that he is entitled to relief because (1) the

State did not establish a factual basis for his plea of guilty; (2) he received ineffective

assistance of counsel; and, (3) the trial judge could only impose a sentence of fifteen years

upon a “petit jury’s verdict.” The trial court summarily dismissed his PCR motion, finding

that Moore had failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to any relief. See Miss. Code Ann.

§ 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2020).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. In McConn v. State, 355 So. 3d 779, 782-83 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court

stated:

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. Moore was convicted on August 17, 2017. He filed his PCR motion on May 23, 2023.

Pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020), Moore had three

years from the date of his conviction to file for relief. Moore has not raised any express

statutory exception to this time-bar. Because Moore’s motion was filed more than three years

after his conviction, it is time-barred. See Brown v. State, 391 So. 3d 225, 227 (¶3) (Miss. Ct.

App. 2024).

¶7. Further, as noted above, Moore had previously filed a PCR motion that the circuit

court denied. This Court dismissed the appeal as untimely filed. Pursuant to Mississippi Code

Annotated section 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2020), Moore’s motion is also barred as a second or

successive motion.

CONCLUSION

¶8. We find that Moore’s PCR motion was properly dismissed as being time-barred and

as a successive motion.

¶9. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND WEDDLE, JJ., CONCUR. ST. PÉ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.