Marco Antonio Roberts v. State of Mississippi

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 2023-CP-01387-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2023-CP-01387-COA

MARCO ANTONIO ROBERTS APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CELESTE EMBREY WILSON COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MARCO ANTONIO ROBERTS (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/11/2025 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.

McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In 2018, a grand jury in DeSoto County indicted Marco Roberts with the intent to sell

heroin and fentanyl; he was also indicted for a sentencing enhancement because he was in

possession of a handgun. A little less than two years later, he filed a petition to plead guilty,

stating he hoped his plea bargain would allow him to serve “10 years of incarceration (statute

req. full service) w/ the opportunity to mitigate his sentence at sentencing.” The preceding

words were handwritten on the plea petition.

¶2. During the plea colloquy, Roberts detailed that despite the quantity, the drugs were

for his own personal use to ameliorate “neck and back problems” stemming from a car

wreck. He told the trial court, “I’m taking full responsibility” for possession of the drugs. “I didn’t mean to mess up. I just made a bad choice. I made a bad choice, and I really hate

that.” The trial court ultimately sentenced him to serve ten years in the custody of the

Department of Corrections followed by ten years of post-release supervision for trafficking

in controlled substances.

¶3. Despite his repeated concessions during his guilty plea, Roberts subsequently

challenged his guilty plea in a petition for post-conviction collateral relief. In the PCR

petition, Roberts claimed his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently given and that

he was denied the effective assistance of counsel.

¶4. The trial court denied the PCR petition, finding that the transcript belied his new

claims and that Roberts was aware of the consequences of his plea. See Hollon v. State, 385

So. 3d 482, 486 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (“[S]tatements made in open court under oath

carry a strong presumption of veracity”). The trial court also denied the claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel because Roberts did not support it with any affidavits or other proof.

Id. at 487 (¶26).

¶5. Roberts appealed, but in his brief, he abandons these two claims. Instead, he shifts

gears to attack the nature of his indictment, arguing that the guilty plea was involuntary since

the indictment was defective, that the indictment did not provide him with sufficient notice

of the charges, and that his appointed lawyer was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty

to a defective indictment.

¶6. We will not review claims when they are first raised on appeal. “Issues not raised in

a motion for post-conviction relief are procedurally barred on appeal.” Bland v. State, 312

2 So. 3d 417, 419 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021). In that very similar PCR case, we noted that

the petitioner “ignores the issues originally raised in the trial court and replaces them with

new arguments he failed to bring before that court.” Id. The “issues raised for the first time

on appeal are procedurally barred from review as they have not first been addressed by the

trial court.” Id. (quotation mark omitted).

¶7. In Bland, after finding the issues were wholly new to his appeal, we determined the

“entire appeal is procedurally barred.” Id. at 420 (¶13). “Coupled with the fact that the

record reflects [his] initial satisfaction with his guilty plea, we decline to address any of his

arguments on appeal.” Id.

¶8. The same result must be reached here. The three arguments Roberts now raises on

appeal were never presented to the trial court for review. Therefore, we find they are

procedurally barred from review. We affirm the trial court’s order denying the PCR petition.

¶9. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.