The circuit court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial on September 21, 2010. Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 438 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). Between the submission of the first motion and our September 2010 decision, Russell filed a second PCR motion on May 10, 2010. The circuit court dismissed this motion with prejudice on May 12, 2010, finding it successive.
The circuit court denied the motion, and this court affirmed the denial on September 21, 2010. Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431, 438 (¶ 24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Between the submission of the first motion and our September 2010 decision, Russell filed a second PCR motion on May 10, 2010.
¶12. "The standard of competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining competency to stand trial." Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 435 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). "[T]he defendant bears the burden to prove `by substantial evidence that he or she is mentally incompetent to stand trial.'"
"The standard of competency necessary to enter a plea of guilty is the same as that for determining competency to stand trial." Russell v. State , 44 So. 3d 431, 435 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). The defendant bears the burden "to show by substantial evidence that his competency to stand trial is in question."
To begin, we reaffirm that "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory." Russell v. State , 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Cole v. State , 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss. 1995) ). "The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every [motion] it entertains."
¶ 6. “We will not disturb the trial court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief unless the trial court's factual findings are found to be clearly erroneous.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 433 (¶ 5) (Miss.Ct.App.2010). “The applicable standard of review where questions of law are raised is de novo.”
On appeal, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on her PCR motion before denying the motion. It is well settled that “[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (citing Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995) ). “The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every [motion] it entertains.”
¶ 33. A defendant is competent to enter a guilty plea as long as he has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 435 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Magee v. State, 914 So.2d 729, 733 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) ). The trial judge in this case was not presented with any information that called into question Brasso's understanding of the charges against him or his ability to consult with his lawyer.
It is well settled that "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not necessary where the allegations in a [PCR motion] are specific and conclusory." Russell v. State, 44 So.3d 431, 434 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2010) (citing Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 777 (Miss.1995) ). "The trial court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on every petition it entertains."
We will not overturn a circuit court's denial of a PCR motion unless its factual findings are clearly erroneous. Russell v. State, 44 So. 3d 431, 434 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). When analyzing a PCR motion, the circuit court must "review the 'original motion, together with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack' to determine whether the defendant has proven the merit of the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence."