Thomas J. Hooghe v. State of Mississippi , 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 168 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
    NO. 2015-CP-00601-COA
    THOMAS J. HOOGHE A/K/A THOMAS                                              APPELLANT
    HOOGHE A/K/A THOMAS JAMES HOOGHE
    v.
    STATE OF MISSISSIPPI                                                         APPELLEE
    DATE OF JUDGMENT:                           03/04/2015
    TRIAL JUDGE:                                HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER
    COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:                  MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                     THOMAS J. HOOGHE (PRO SE)
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:                      OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY: BILLY L. GORE
    NATURE OF THE CASE:                         CIVIL - POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
    TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:                    MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF
    DISMISSED
    DISPOSITION:                                AFFIRMED - 03/29/2016
    MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
    MANDATE ISSUED:
    BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ.
    JAMES, J., FOR THE COURT:
    ¶1.    Thomas Hooghe appeals the summary dismissal of his motion for postconviction
    relief (PCR). We find that the dismissal of Hooghe’s motion should be affirmed, without
    prejudice, so that Hooghe may refile a procedurally proper PCR motion with the circuit court
    within the applicable statute of limitations.
    ¶2.    On September 22, 2014, Hooghe pled guilty in circuit court cause number 2014-258
    to one count of motor-vehicle theft, as a subsequent motor-vehicle offender, and two counts
    of grand larceny. In circuit court cause number 2014-413, he pled guilty to a single count
    of grand larceny. In cause number 2014-258, Hooghe was sentenced as a subsequent
    offender to fifteen years under count one for motor-vehicle theft; to ten years under count
    two for grand larceny; and to ten years under count three for grand larceny. In cause number
    2014-413, Hooghe was sentenced to ten years for the single count of grand larceny. All
    sentences were ordered to run consecutively.
    ¶3.    On December 30, 2014, Hooghe filed an unsworn PCR motion in the circuit court,
    which he later amended. On February 9, 2015, Hooghe filed an unsworn amended PCR
    motion. Hooghe’s unsworn motion raised several assignments of error. On March 4, 2015,
    the circuit court summarily dismissed Hooghe’s PCR motion. The circuit court’s order stated
    that under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-11(2) (Rev. 2015), “it plainly appears
    that [Hooghe] is not entitled to any relief and that the request should be dismissed.”
    ¶4.     PCR motions must contain “[a] separate statement of the specific facts which are
    within the personal knowledge of the petitioner and which shall be sworn to by the
    petitioner[.]” 
    Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-9
    (1)(d) (Rev. 2015). Hooghe did not comply with
    this provision because his PCR motion did not include a sworn statement of specific facts.
    Moreover, PCR motions must be accompanied by a verified oath of the prisoner. Walton v.
    State, 
    165 So. 3d 516
    , 522 (¶24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citing 
    Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-9
    (3)
    (Rev. 2015)). Hooghe’s PCR motion did not comply with Mississippi Code Annotated
    section 99-39-9(3) because it was not accompanied by a verified oath.
    ¶5.    “Although this Court has often acknowledged that meritorious claims of pro se
    petitioners will not be avoided based on inartfully drafted pleadings, we have instructed that
    2
    petitioners, even if proceeding pro se, must comply with the dictates of section
    99-39-9(1)(d)-(e).” Chapman v. State, 
    47 So. 3d 203
    , 207 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)
    (citing Taylor v, State, 
    984 So. 2d 372
    , 373 (¶¶2-3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008); Winston v. State,
    
    893 So. 2d 274
    , 275 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)). It is plain from the face of the motion that
    Hooghe is not entitled to any relief because his PCR motion was not sworn to and did not
    contain a verified oath as required by Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-9(1)(d) and
    (3).
    ¶6.    Therefore, the dismissal of Hooghe’s PCR motion is affirmed, without prejudice, so
    that he may refile a procedurally proper motion in compliance with Mississippi Code
    Annotated section 99-39-9. See Taylor, 
    984 So. 2d at 373
     (¶3).
    ¶7.  THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
    ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MADISON COUNTY.
    LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR
    AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. GREENLEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-CP-00601-COA

Citation Numbers: 187 So. 3d 682, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 168

Judges: Barnes, Carlton, Fair, Greenlee, Griffis, Irving, Ishee, James, Lee, Wilson

Filed Date: 3/29/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024