When the NCAA gave schools the green light to add a third basketball exhibition this season for charitable purposes, Fresno State went hunting.

It had a cause in the wildfires that devastated Northern California.

“But they’re most likely a team that’s going to make the (NCAA) tournament. This was a good test for us and they’re probably going to be the biggest and best-shooting team that we play.

who is terrell carter dating now-44who is terrell carter dating now-27

In exchange for his guilty pleas, the State agreed that the second indictment would not be amended to include habitual-offender status, and Counts 2 and 3 would be retired to the files. Carter was sentenced to serve ten years, without the eligibility for parole, for the possession of stolen property as a habitual offender and a consecutive term of fifteen years, with thirteen suspended, for identity theft.¶ 4. However, when reviewing issues of law, this Court's proper standard of review is de novo. The statute states “any order dismissing the petitioner's motion or otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and shall be conclusive until reversed.

On June 24, 2011, Carter filed his motion and asserted: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) that the indictment was improperly amended to include habitual-offender status. It shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this article.Ӧ 8.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CARLOS CARTER (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA HOLLAND ¶ 1.

We find that Carter's motion was procedurally barred as a successive writ under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99–39–23(6) (Supp.2012). Police found Carter in possession of a vehicle that had been stolen from a car lot.

The circuit judge dismissed the second motion on February 29, 2012. Therefore, Carter's motion is procedurally barred.¶ 9. Based upon the plain language of the statute, Carter's defense at trial would not have been affected by amending the form of the indictment to read “credit card number.” The relevant statutes for identity theft clearly show the offense includes fraudulently, willfully, and feloniously using another person's credit-card number, not just another's credit card, to unlawfully purchase retail items. Finding Carter's PCCR motion to be procedurally barred as a successive writ and no further merit to his claims, we affirm the decision of the circuit court to dismiss Carter's motion.¶ 16.

Notwithstanding the procedural bar, we will address the merits of his claims. Therefore, the facts charged were not materially altered as to change the substance of his indictment. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST–CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. J., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.

“Saint Mary’s is a program that we have a lot of respect for.

We knew this was going to be a real test for us on the road.

However, we note that Carter has raised seven issues on appeal. In other words, the amendment must materially alter “the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood as to prejudice the defendant's case” in order for this Court to grant relief. State, 552 So.2d 99, 107 (Miss.1989) (quoting Ellis v. Identity theft is clearly defined in Mississippi Code Annotated section 97–45–19 as a person's attempt or action of obtaining “personal identity information of another person with the intent to unlawfully use that information for any of the following purposes without that person's authorization: (a) [t]o obtain financial credit[;] (b) [t]o purchase or otherwise obtain or lease any real or personal property[;] ․ (e) [t]o commit any illegal act.” “Personal identity information” explicitly includes a “financial transaction device account number”; such a device includes an electronic-funds-transfer card, a credit card, and a debit card. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES COUNTY. ROBERTS AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. There are exceptions to this procedural bar; however, Carter failed to address any issues in his argument that would be an exception to the procedural bar.