Sepeccuss Langston v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2010-CP-00590-COA
SEPECCUSS LANGSTON
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
02/23/2010
HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN
DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
SEPECCUSS LANGSTON (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LISA LYNN BLOUNT
SCOTT STUART
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED
AFFIRMED - 03/15/2011
EN BANC.
ISHEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Sepeccuss Langston filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) in the Circuit
Court of DeSoto County. After reviewing the record, the trial court dismissed the motion.
Aggrieved, Langston timely filed this appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
In November 2007, a DeSoto County grand jury indicted Langston on two counts of
possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility. On February 25, 2008,
Langston entered a guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance in a
correctional facility. During the sentencing, Langston admitted to the trial court that he had
twice been convicted of felonies in the State of Tennessee, thus making him a habitual
offender. The trial court sentenced Langston to serve seven years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and to pay $1,000 fine plus court costs. The
second possession charge was remanded to the file.
¶3.
Langston subsequently filed a PCR motion, wherein he argued that his sentence was
unconstitutional and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court denied the motion,
finding that Langston’s sentence was legal and that Langston had failed to prove his trial
counsel was ineffective.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶4.
In reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a PCR motion, our standard of review is well
stated. We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly
erroneous. Pace v. State, 770 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). However,
where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de novo. Id.
DISCUSSION
¶5.
Langston has asserted two issues for appeal: whether the trial court erred in sentencing
him as a habitual offender and whether his trial counsel was ineffective. We will address
each issue in turn.
I. Habitual-Offender Status
¶6.
Langston asserts that the trial court improperly sentenced him as a habitual offender
pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2007). He contends the
2
State failed to prove that he had been convicted twice previously of a felony within the
meaning of the statute.
¶7.
During sentencing, Langston twice admitted that the State could establish the
underlying felony convictions, and he admitted that exhibits were included in his indictment
to support the previous convictions. We have previously held that “[a]dmissions to prior
criminal convictions are sufficient to permit a finding of habitual status.” Sanders v. State,
786 So. 2d 1078, 1082 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
¶8.
Accordingly, this issue is without merit.
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
¶9.
In his second issue on appeal, Langston argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to investigate the Tennessee convictions. Prisoners alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel in a PCR motion must demonstrate the elements of the claim with specificity and
detail. Sandifer v. State, 799 So. 2d 914, 918 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Specifically,
Langston must allege facts showing his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the
deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984).
¶10.
Langston has failed to meet his burden of proving deficiency and any resulting
prejudice. As previously stated, Langston admitted to the two prior Tennessee felony
convictions. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of section
99-19-81. Additionally, there was no need for Langston’s trial counsel to investigate the
Tennessee felony convictions, as Langston testified to them. This issue is without merit.
¶11.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
3
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO DESOTO COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., MYERS, BARNES, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.