William McLendon a/k/a William E. McLendon v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2022-CP-00057-COA

WILLIAM McLENDON A/K/A WILLIAM E. APPELLANT
McLENDON

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/27/2021
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ANTHONY ALAN MOZINGO
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: WILLIAM McLENDON (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/06/2022
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

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

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. William McLendon filed a motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) in the

Marion County Circuit Court, seeking relief from his 2020 felony conviction. The circuit

court found that it plainly appeared from the face of the motion that McLendon was not

entitled to relief and summarily dismissed the motion. McLendon appealed this dismissal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On June 22, 2020, McLendon entered a plea of guilty to the sale of more than two

dosage units but less than ten dosage units of oxycodone acetaminophen, a Schedule II

controlled substance, within 1,500 feet of a school, as a habitual offender pursuant to

Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Supp. 2018). He was sentenced to serve a
term of eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a habitual

offender.

¶3. On December 8, 2021, McLendon filed his PCR motion claiming that there was no

factual basis for his guilty plea, that the State erred in prosecuting him because there was no

factual basis for the charges, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because

there was no factual basis for his guilty plea. Other than McLendon’s sworn motion, there

were no affidavits attached to support his claims.

¶4. On December 27, 2021, the circuit court entered an order dismissing McLendon’s

PCR motion, finding that during the guilty plea the State had set forth a factual basis to

support the charge, and McLendon had testified that the State’s statement of facts supporting

the charge was true. Further, the circuit court found that McLendon’s claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel was not properly supported.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶5. In Lopez v. State, 343 So. 3d 408, 412-13 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022), this Court

stated:

“When reviewing a circuit court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we
will only disturb the circuit court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however,
we review the circuit court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of
review.” Taylor v. State, 313 So. 3d 1106, 1109 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021)
(quoting Williams v. State, 228 So. 3d 844, 846 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)).
“The [circuit] court may summarily dismiss a PCR motion where 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.” Pinkney
v. State, 192 So. 3d 337, 341 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

2
ANALYSIS

¶6. McLendon argues on appeal that the trial court erred by dismissing the claims

contained in his PCR motion. His argument is the same for each of his three claims.1

McLendon cites Carreiro v. State, 5 So. 3d 1170 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009), and Hannah v.

State, 943 So. 2d 20, 26-27 (Miss. 2006), to support his contention that there was no factual

basis for his plea of guilty because he “never once” stated “in full detail on the record what

he did to commit a crime.” McLendon’s reliance on these cases to support his argument is

misplaced.

¶7. The factual basis to support a plea of guilty can be established in a number of ways.

In Crawford v. State, 287 So. 3d 314, 318 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019), this Court explained:

As this Court has previously stated, “[J]ust as there is more than one way to
skin the proverbial cat, there are numerous ways to establish a factual basis for
a guilty plea.” Williams v. State, 110 So. 3d 840, 843 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App.
2013). Guilty pleas may be factually established “by a statement of the
prosecutor, the testimony of live witnesses, and prior proceedings, as well as
an actual admission by the defendant.” Id. (citing Turner v. State, 864 So. 2d
288, 292 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)) (internal quotations marks omitted).
However, “[t]he mere fact that the factual basis does not provide all the details
which may be produced at trial does not make the guilty plea invalid.” Cherry
v. State, 24 So. 3d 1048, 1052 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Also, “if sufficiently
specific, an indictment or information can be used as the sole source of the

1
On appeal he vaguely raises a claim, for the first time, that his sentence was illegal.
He contends that his sentence was illegal because he had prior convictions and could not
have a “suspended term or probation.” The sentencing order reflects that he was sentenced
to serve a term of eight years as a habitual offender. No portion of his sentence was
suspended, and he was not ordered to serve a term of probation. He did not raise or develop
this issue before the trial court, and this issue is barred from consideration on appeal. See
Reardon v. State, 341 So. 3d 1004, 1009, 1011-12 (¶¶12, 26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022).

3
factual basis for a guilty plea.” Id. (citing Drake v. State, 823 So. 2d 593, 594
(¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)).

¶8. During the guilty plea hearing, the State gave the factual basis of the charge to which

McLendon was offering his plea of guilty. The State said it would prove that

on or about November 21, 2018, in Marion County, Mississippi, Mr.
McLendon did knowingly sale or transfer to a confidential source with the
Marion County Sheriff’s Department two to ten dosage units of Oxycodone
Acetaminophen a Schedule II controlled substance, while Mr. McLendon had
been previously convicted of two felony offenses and is a habitual offender
under 99-19-81.

The State went on to give the details of McLendon’s prior felony convictions and advised

the court that he was sentenced to more than a year for each offense and that they were

separate offenses. The State advised that it would provide the court with certified copies of

the convictions and McLendon’s pen packs to prove the convictions if the matter proceeded

to trial. The State continued and stated that it would call Captain Pete Williams of the Marion

County Sheriff’s Department and the confidential source to prove that McLendon made the

sale in exchange for $140. The State indicated that it had audio and video recordings of the

transaction. The controlled substance was submitted to the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory,

and the State would call the crime lab expert who tested the substance to confirm that the

substance sold was two to ten dosage units of oxycodone acetaminophen, a Schedule II

controlled substance.

¶9. When asked by the trial court whether these facts were true, McLendon testified,

under oath, “[Y]es sir.” Further, when asked by the trial court how he pled to the charge of

4
“sale of controlled substance within 1,500 feet of a school, as a habitual offender,”

McLendon, under oath, said “guilty.” Thus McLendon admitted that he sold the controlled

substance within 1,500 feet of a school and acknowledged that he was a habitual offender

as shown by the State’s proffer.2

CONCLUSION

¶10. This Court finds that during the guilty plea hearing, a proper factual basis was shown

as to each of the elements of the offense for which McLendon was convicted. Because each

of McLendon’s PCR claims was based upon the absence of a factual basis, his claims are

without merit. The circuit court did not err by summarily dismissing the PCR motion.

¶11. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE,
WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND SMITH, JJ.,
CONCUR.

2
During the plea hearing, the State advised the court that since McLendon was
pleading guilty as a habitual offender, the State had agreed to drop the 1,500-feet
enhancement. However, the court included the enhancement in its questions to McLendon,
and the defendant pled guilty to the enhanced charge. That issue was not raised by
McLendon in his PCR motion. In any event, McLendon received the sentence recommended
by the State, eight years, which was the maximum sentence for the offense without the
enhancement.

5