E-Filed Document Jun 24 2015 12:28:11 2015-CP-00601-COA Pages: 18 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI THOMAS J. HOOGHE a/k/a a/kla THOMAS HOOGHE a/k/a a/kla THOMASJAMESHOOGHE HOOGHE APPELLANT VERSUS NO.2015-CP-00601-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLYL. GORE SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MISSISSIPPI BAR NO. 4912 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MS 39205-0220 TELEPHONE: (601) 359-3680
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE... 1 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 4 ARGUMENT... 7 HOOGHE'S CLAIMS OF A DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT, ILLEGAL SENTENCE, INEFFECTIVE LA WYER, ET CETERA, ARE EITHER WAIVED, DEVOID OF MERIT ON THEIR FACE OR SUBSTANTIALLY AND MATERIALLY CONTRADICTED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORD... 7 Defective Indictment... 8 Denial of Preliminary Hearing... 9 Illegal Sentence... 9 Unconstitutional Auto Larceny Statute... 9 Ineffective Counsel... 10 Cumulative Error... 10 CONCLUSION... 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 12 i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Anderson v. State, 577 So.2d 390 (Miss. 1991)... 7, 9 Baker v. State, 358 So.2d 401 (Miss. 1978)... 3, 6, 8 Bilbo v. State, 881 So.2d 966 (Ct. App. Miss. 2004)... 5, 7 Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595 (Miss. 1999)... 6, 7 Buckhalter v. State, 912 So.2d 159 (Ct. App. Miss. 2006)... 8 Dockery v. State, 96 So.3d 759 (Ct. App. Miss. 2012)... 4, 5 Drennan v. State, 695 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1997)... 6 Elliottv. State, 41So.3d701 (Ct. App. Miss. 2009)... 10 Fairly v. State, 812 So.2d 259 (Ct. App. Miss. 2002)... 6, 8 Falconer v. State, 832 So.2d 622 (Ct. App. Miss. 2002)... 11 Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280 (Miss. 1992)... 9 Flowers v. State, 35 So.3d 516 (Miss. 2010)... 9 Genry v. State, 735 So.2d 186 (Miss. 1999)... 10 Hersickv. State, 904 So.2d 116 (Miss. 2004)... 6, 7 Hunt v. State, 874 So.2d 448 (Ct. App. Miss. 2004)... 5 Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 101 (Miss. 1989)... 7, 9 Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428 (Miss. 1991)... 7 Mayfieldv. State, 612 So.2d 1120 (Miss. 1992)... 9 Mowdy v. State, 638 So.2d 738 (Miss. 1994)... 8 Parker v. State, 71 So.3d 620 (Ct. App. Miss. 2011)... 4 ii
Philips v. State, 856 So.2d 568 (Ct. App. Miss. 2003)... 6 Richardson v. State, 769 So.2d 230 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000)... 3, 8 Rigdon v. State, 126 So.3d 931 (Ct. App. Miss. 2013)... 10 Robinson v. State, 920 So.2d 1009 (Ct. App. Miss. 2003)... 8 Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406 (Miss. 1983)... 9 State v. Santiago, 773 So.2d 921 (Miss. 2000)... 4 Swilley v. State, 93 So.3d 901 (Ct. App. Miss. 2012)... 10 Taylor v. State, 766 So.2d 830 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000)... 3, 7, 8 Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871 (Miss. 1991)... 5 Walton v. State, 16 So.3d 66 8) (Ct. App. Miss. 2009)... 5 STATE STATUTES Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-9(3)... 4, 7 Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-11... 10 Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-11(2)... 4, 5 Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-21(1)... 9 Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-23(7)... 5, 7 iii
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI THOMAS J. HOOGHE a/k/a THOMAS HOOGHE a/k/a THOMASJAMESHOOGHE APPELLANT VERSUS NO. 2015-CP-00601-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE STATEMENT OF THE CASE THOMAS HOOGHE is a fifty-seven ( 57) year old Caucasian male and ex-marine honorably discharged. (C.P. at 73, 92, 172) He has a twelfth grade education and can both read and write. (C.P. at 73, 155) Sadly, Mr. Hooghe appears to be a non-violent criminal entrepreneur with a rather extensive criminal history which consists of prior convictions of burglary (5 counts) in the state of Ohio in 1996, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in Texas in 2007 and again in 2008, and the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle in DeSoto County Mississippi in 2012. (C.P. at 42, 85, 163, 174) On April 14, 2014, Hooghewasreleased:fromphysical custody in themdoc. (C.P. at 174) A week later, on or about April 22, 2014, Hooghe committed the offense charged in lower court cause number 2014-0258. It is needless to say, but we say it nevertheless, Mr. Hooghe appears beyond rehabilitation. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Hooghe seeks appellate review of the summary denial of his "Motion for Post-Conviction 1
Collateral Relief' filed in the Circnit Court of Madison County on December 30, 2014, and his amended motion for post-conviction collateral relief filed on February 9, 2015, only three (3) months and four (4) months, respectively, after entering on September 22, 2014, voluntary pleas of guilty to three (3) counts of grand larceny in lower court cause number 2014-258 and a single count of grand larceny in lower court cause number 2014-413. (C.P. at 178-79; appellee's exhibit A, attached.) Following his negotiated and open pleas whereby the State, in exchange for Hooghe's pleas of guilty, agreed to eschew going forward on all charges as a habitual and subsequent offender (C.P. at 164-65, 174), Judge Emfinger, in the wake of a presentence investigation and report (C.P. at 171), sentenced Hooghe to serve fifteen (15) years (Count I), ten (10) years (Count II), ten (10) years (Count III), and ten (10) years (Count IV), for a total period ofincarceration of forty-five ( 45) years. (C.P. at 82-83, 94-96, 175-76) The ink had hardly dried on the papers reflecting Hooghe's pleas and the multiple sentences imposed in their wake when Hooghe,pro se either in person or via an industrious inmate writ-writer, filed a motion for post-conviction relief serving up a smorgasbord of illegitimate complaints. In his fill-in-the-blank, unsworn, handwritten motion, Hooghe claimed, inter alia, (1) he was twice denied a preliminary hearing; (2) his indictment was multiplicitous and defective; (3) the auto larceny statute, the basis for the charge in count I, is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and his indictment therefor was duplicitous; (4) his indictment failed to allege "probable cause;" (5) he was illegally sentenced; (6) his lawyer was ineffective and, topping it all off, (7) there was cumulative error. On February 9, 2015, Hooghe filed an amendment to his motion for petition for postconviction relief. (C.P. at 124-130) It, likewise, appears to be unsworn and thereby lacking the 2
trustworthiness of the official oath. On March 4, 2015, Judge Emfinger, the same judge who had entertained Hooghe's guilty pleas only six (6) months earlier, summarily denied Hooghe's motion as plainly or manifestly without merit. Judge Emfinger made no specific findings of fact other than to find that"... it plainly appears that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and that the request should be dismissed." (C.P. at 178-79) The claims made by Hooghe on appeal closely resemble those made in his motion and amended motion, viz., (I) his indictment was multiplicitous and therefore fatally defective; (II) he was twice denied a preliminary hearing; (III) the auto larceny statute is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous; (IV) the State failed to serve Hooghe with his second indictment; (V) Hooghe was illegally sentenced; (VI) there was cumulative error and (VII) Hooghe had ineffective counsel. Several of these claims are belied by the transcript of the plea-qualification hearing taking place on September 22, 2014. The other claims have been waived as a result ofhooghe's voluntary pleas of guilty to the crimes charged. Hooghe wholeheartedly agreed there was a factual basis for his pleas of guilty to the crimes charged as explained by the prosecutor in plain and ordinary English. (C.P. at 165-66) Hooghe agreed to plead guilty but not as an habitual or subsequent offender, a charge that the prosecution declined to pursue. (C.P. at 154, 164, 167) This Court has said, time and again, that"[ s ]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Baker v. State, 358 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978). Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing was not required. Richardson v. State, 769 So.2d 230 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000); Taylor v. State, 766 So.2d 830 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000). This appeal from denial of post-conviction relief flowing in the wake of voluntary and 3
intelligent pleas of guilty is but another feeble effort by an industrious prisoner and his j ailhouse lawyer to take advantage of a system that bends over backwards to protect the rights of the guilty. While Hooghe' s arguments are intellectually stimulating, they fall short of convincing us, or persuading a reviewing court, the trial judge was clearly erroneous or manifestly wrong in summarily denying post-conviction relief. The posture of this appeal is controlled, fully and fairly, by the standards found in Dockery v. State, 96 So.3d 759, 763 ('if! 7) (Ct. App. Miss. 2012), which addressed the "clearly erroneous" and "preponderance of the evidence" standards. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Miss.Code Ann. 99-39-9(3) of the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act states, in plain and ordinary English, that "[t]he motion [for post-convictionrelief] shall be verified by the oath of the prisoner." It appears that neither Hooghe's motion for post-conviction relief filed on December 30, 2014, nor his amended motion filed on February 9, 2015, is "verified by the oath of the prisoner." (C.P. at 18, 129-30) The motion was properly denied for this reason, if for no other. Miss.Code Ann. 99-39-11 (2) authorizes a circuit judge to summarily dismiss a motion for post-conviction relief if it is manifestly devoid of merit. Specifically, "[i]f 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, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." See Parker v. State, 71 So.3d 620, 623 (Ct. App. Miss. 2011) quoting from State v. Santiago, 773 So.2d 921, 923-24('ifl1) (Miss. 2000). 4
It did, the judge made, and he was. "[W]here the trial court summarily dismisses the post-conviction relief claim, it does not have an obligation to render factual findings and this Court will assume that the issue was decided consistent with the judgment and... will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous." Hunt v. State, 874 So.2d 448, 452 (i!13) (Ct. App. Miss. 2004). See also Bilbo v. State, 881 So.2d 966, 967 (i!3) (Ct. App. Miss. 2004) ["When a trial court has denied a petition for post-conviction relief, this Court will examine whether the denial is clearly erroneous."] "This Court has established that dismissal of a PCR motion is proper where 'it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id. (Quoting Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871, 874 (Miss. 1991)). Judge Emfinger's order of dismissal reflects that" [a]fter reviewing the motion and all its attachments, including the motion to amend, as well as the underlying criminal files and the transcript of the guilty plea and the sentencing hearings, the Court finds that, pursuant to Miss Code Ann, 99-39-11(2)(1972, as amended), it plainly appears that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and that the request should be dismissed." (C.P. at 178-79) When reviewing the voluntariness of a guilty plea, this Court"... will not set aside findings of a trial court sitting without a jury unless such findings are clearly erroneous." Dockery v. State, supra, 96 So.3d 759, 763 i!l 7), citing Walton v. State, 16 So.3d 66, 70 (i!8) (Ct. App. Miss. 2009). "The burden is upon [Hooghe] to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested post-conviction relief." Bilbo v. State, supra, 881 So.2d 966, 968 (i!3) (Ct. App. Miss. 2004) citing Miss.Code Ann. 99-39-23(7) (Rev. 2000). Hooghe has failed to do so here. 5
Hooghe swore, under the trustworthiness of the official oath and under the pain and penalty of perjury (C.P. at 154), he understood the elements of each offense (C.P. at 156-59), he understood the maximum penalty could be 45 years (C.P. at 162), he understood the State could prove the factual basis asserted for his pleas (C.P. at 166-67); he was "satisfied" with the representation of his lawyer and wished to make no complaints about his attorney, and he was voluntarily pleading guilty to the crime of motor vehicle theft charged in count I of cause number 2014-258, grand larceny charged in Count II, grand larceny charged in Count III, and grand larceny charged in cause number 2014-413. (C.P. at 167-68) Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. Baker v. State, supra, 358 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978); Fairly v. State, 812 So.2d 259, 263 (ifl l) (Ct. App. Miss. 2002). "This court reviews the denial of post-conviction relief under an abuse of discretion standard." Philips v. State, 856 So.2d 568, 570 (Ct. App. Miss. 2003). Summary denial was not an abuse of judicial discretion and was practical, prudent and proper in this case. This Court will not reverse findings of fact made by a trial judge unless they are clearly erroneous [Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (if6) (Miss. 1999)], or manifestly wrong. Hersick v. State, 904 So.2d 116, 125 (Miss. 2004). There are material contradictions between what Hooghe says "here and now" that cannot be reconciled with what Hooghe said "then and there." Lest we forget, Hooghe did not go to trial. Rather, he entered pleas of guilty. Aside from all the material contradictions found here, Hooghe, by his voluntary pleas of guilty, waived all nonjurisdictional defects incident to trial and antecedent to his plea. Drennan v. State, 695 So.2d 581 6
(Miss. 1997); Luckett v. State, 582 So.2d 428 (Miss. 1991); Audersou v. State, 577 So.2d 290 (Miss. 1991); Jefferson v. State, 556 So.2d 1016, 1019 (Miss. 1989). By pleading guilty, Hooghe also waived any "defenses" he might have had to the charges. Taylor v. State, 766 So.2d 830 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000). Therefore, summary denial was not an abuse of judicial discretion. ARGUMENT HOOGHE'S CLAIMS OF A DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT, ILLEGAL SENTENCE, INEFFECTIVE LAWYER, ET CETERA, ARE EITHER WAIVED, DEVOID OF MERIT ON THEIR FACE OR SUBSTANTIALLY AND MATERIALLY CONTRADICTED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORD. Neither Hooghe's motion nor his amended motion appears to"... be verified by the oath of the prisoner." Miss.Code Ann. 99-39-9(3). Both were properly dismissed summarily for this reason, if for no other. "The burden is upon [Hooghe] to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the requested post-conviction relief." Bilbo v. State, supra, 881 So.2d 966, 968 (~3) (Ct. App. Miss. 2004) citing Miss.Code Ann. 99-39-23(7) (Rev. 2000). Hooghe has failed to do so here. We say again! When reviewing the trial court's decision to deny a petition for postconviction relief, an appellate court will not disturb the trial court's factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (~6) (Miss. 1999). "A trial judge's frndingwill not be reversed unless manifestly wrong." Hersick v. State, 904 So.2d 116, 125 (Miss. 2004). "However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of review is de nova," i.e., afresh or anew. Id. Any claims made by Hooghe that his pleas of guilty were not entirely voluntary are belied 7
by the official record which includes the transcript of the plea-qualification hearing taking place on September 22, 2014, as well as the petition to enter plea of guilty. (C.P. at 152-77; 73-80) This Court has said, time and again, that"[ s ]olenm declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity." Baker v. State, supra, 358 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978). In Robinson v. State, 920 So.2d 1009, 1012 (i!lo) (Ct. App. Miss. 2003), the Court of Appeals held that material contradictions in the plea transcript rendered Robinson's assertions "a sham." We respectfully submit the same may be equally true here. Although a defendant is entitled to change his mind, solemn declarations made in open court under the trustworthiness of the official oath carry a strong presumption of verity. Baker v. State, supra, 358 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1978); Fairleyv. State, 812 So.2d259, 263 (i!l l) (Ct. App. Miss. 2002), citing Richardson v. State, supra, 769 So.2d 230, 235-36 (i!14) (Ct. App. Miss. 2000). Stated somewhat differently, for purposes of determination of the voluntariness of a guilty plea, the Supreme Court places "... a strong presumption of validity upon an individual's statements made under oath." Mowdy v. State, 638 So.2d 738, 743 (Miss. 1994). This presumption has not been overcome here. Accordingly, an evidentiary hearing was not required. Richardson v. State, supra, 769 So.2d 230 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000); Taylor v. State, 766 So.2d 830 (Ct. App. Miss. 2000). Defective Indictment. Hooghe says his indictment suffered from "multiplicity". Hooghe's voluntary pleas of guilty waived this argument. See Buckhalter v. State, 912 So.2d 159 (Ct. App. Miss. 2006), which correctly held that a valid guilty plea admits all elements 8
of a formal charge and operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects contained in an indictment. With only two exceptions the entry of a!mowing and voluntary guilty plea waives all other defects or insufficiencies in the indictment. Anderson v. State, supra, 577 So.2d 390. 391 (Miss. 1991); Jefferson v. State, supra, 556 So.2d 1016, 1019 (Miss. 1989). hearing. Neither of those exceptions are applicable here. Denial of Preliminary Hearing. Hooghe complains he was twice denied a preliminary hearing. Hooghe' s indictment by a Grand Jury operated as a waiver ofhooghe's rightto a preliminary "We hold that once a defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, the right to a preliminary hearing is deemed waived." Mayfield v. State, 612 So.2d 1120, 1129 (Miss. 1992). statute. Illegal Sentence. Hooghe claims his sentence was illegal because the trial judge failed to consider the amended The trial judge sentenced Hooghe under the correct statutes. (C.P. at 162) See Flowers v. State, 35 So.3d 516, 518 (~5) (Miss. 2010) ["It is fundamental that the statute in effect at the time an offense is committed is the one that must control the prosecution of the offense."] Unconstitutional Auto Larceny Statute. "Constitutional arguments not asserted at trial are waived." Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 292 (Miss. 1992), citing Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406, 407 (Miss. 1983). Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-21(1) reads as follows: Failure by a prisoner to raise objections, defenses, claims, question, issues or errors either in fact or law which were capable of determination at trial and/or on 9
direct appeal, regardless of whether such are based on the laws and the constitution of the state of Mississippi or of the United States, shall constitute a waiver thereof and shall be procedurally barred, but the court may upon a showing of cause and actual prejudice grant relief from the waiver. This section"... prohibits a prisoner from raising certain issues in a PCR motion if they should have been raised prior to filing a PCR motion, and a failure to raise these issues acts as a waiver." Swilley v. State, 93 So.3d 901, 904 ('!8) (Ct. App. Miss. 2012). Ineffective Counsel. Hooghe' s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was waived by virtue ofhis voluntary pleas of guilty. Rigdon v. State, 126 So.3d 931 (Ct. App. Miss. 2013). Moreover, Hooghe told Judge Emfinger he was satisfied with his lawyer and acknowledged he had no complaints to make about his lawyer's representation. (C.P. at 168) Hooghe agreed there was a legal and factual basis for his pleas as those facts were explained by the prosecutor. (C.P. at 166-67) These acknowledgments have got to stand for something. See Elliott v. State, 41 So.3d 701, 708 ('i[23) (Ct. App. Miss. 2009), where "Elliott's testimony at the plea hearing contradict[ed] his contentions [and] Elliott affirmed that he was 'totally satisfied' with his counsel's legal representation." Cumulative Error. There being no error in any individual part, there can be no error to the whole. Genry v. State, 735 So.2d 186, 201 (Miss. 1999). CONCLUSION Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-11 reads, in its pertinent parts, as follows: * * * * * * (2) lfit 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, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the prisoner to be notified. 10
* * * * * * It does, he did, and he was. Falconer v. State, 832 So.2d 622 (Ct. App. Miss. 2002) ["(W)e affirm the dismissal of Falconer's motion for post-conviction relief as manifestly without merit."]. Appellee respectfully submits this case is devoid of any claims worthy of an evidentiary hearing or vacation of the guilty pleas voluntarily and intelligently entered by Thomas Hooghe. Accordingly, the judgment entered in the lower court summarily denying Hooghe's motion for postconviction relief should be forthwith affirmed. Respectfully submitted, JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: /s/ Billy L. Gore BILLY L. GORE SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MISSISSIPPI BAR NO. 4912 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MS 39205-0220 TELEPHONE: (601) 359-3680 11
I I! I I ' i ' i Case 45Cl1:14': -304 Document 9 Filed 03/04d :o Page 1 of 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI - - - THOMAS HOOGHE FILED PETITIONER vs. THIS DAY MAR - ~ 20!5 \.y/ LEE WESTBROOK!VIL ACTION NO. C!-2014-0304-E CIRCUIT CLERK STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT I ORDER COMES NOW BEFORE THE COURT the MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL REUEF filed by THOMAS HOOGHE ("HOOGHE") in the above styled and numbered cause on December 30, 2014. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-11 (1972, as amended), on January 21, 2015, the Court ordered that a transcript of HOOGHE's guilty plea hearing and sentencing hearing that were conducted on or about September 22,.2014, and September 29, 2014, respectively, be placed in this file. The Court further ordered that the file a certified copy of each of HOOGHE's criminal files, which are Cause Nos. 2014-0258 and 2014-413 on the docket of this Court, be placed in this file. On February 9, 2015, Hooghe filed PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. After reviewing the motion and all its attachments, including the motion to amend, as well as the underlying criminal fi!es and the transcript of the guilty plea and the sentencing hearings, the Court finds that, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 99-39-11 (2)(1972, as amended), it plainly appears that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and that the request should be dismissed. Page 1 of 2 I
,. Case 45Cll:l4'. 304 Document 9 Filed 03/04/~ " Page 2 of 2 IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF and PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND HIS PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF should be and the same are hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of March, 2015. ( Page 2 of 2 179
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BILLY L. GORE, hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing pleading or other paper with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to the following: Further, I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-mec participants: This the 24th day of June, 2015. Honorable John Huey Emfinger Circuit Court Judge P.O. Box 1885 Brandon, MS 39043 Honorable Michael Guest District Attorney P.O. Box 121 Canton, MS 39046 Thomas J. Hooghe, Pro Se, #177854 EMCF 10641 Hwy. 80 W. Meridian, MS 39307 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE BOX 220 JACKSON, MS 39205-0220 TELEPHONE NO. 602-359-3680 FAX NO. 601-576-2420 Email: Isl Billy L. Gore BILLY L. GORE SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 12