Alex Castillo-Valencia a/k/a Alex Stiveen Castillo-Valencia v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2025-CP-00348-COA ALEX CASTILLO-VALENCIA A/K/A ALEX APPELLANT STIVEEN CASTILLO-VALENCIA v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/05/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. STEVE S. RATCLIFF III COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ALEX CASTILLO-VALENCIA (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ASHLEY LAUREN SULSER NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/21/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE BARNES, C.J., LAWRENCE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Alex Castillo-Valencia appeals the Madison County Circuit Court’s March 5, 2025 order denying his claims and dismissing his motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR). Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History ¶2. On June 17, 2020, Castillo-Valencia entered a guilty plea “to four counts of burglary of a dwelling and one count of attempted burglary of a dwelling.” Castillo-Valencia v. State, 396 So. 3d 1214, 1215 (¶1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024). The Madison County Circuit Court sentenced him to concurrent twenty-five-year sentences on each count in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with fifteen years to serve and five years of post- release supervision. Id. Castillo-Valencia filed a PCR motion on August 17, 2023, claiming “his plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel[.]” Id. at 1215 (¶2). The circuit court dismissed the motion, finding that his claims were time-barred and that he failed to raise a valid exception to the time-bar. Id. This Court affirmed the court’s decision on November 26, 2024. Id. at 1216 (¶7).

¶3. Castillo-Valencia filed a “Petition for Relief from a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in Custody” on March 3, 2025, again asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. On March 5, 2025, the circuit court dismissed Castillo-Valencia’s motion, finding it was barred as a successive motion and untimely. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-23(6), 99-39-5(2) (Rev. 2020).

Standard of Review ¶4. We will only disturb a circuit court’s decision to deny or dismiss a PCR motion “if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the circuit court’s legal conclusion under a de novo standard of review.” Thompson v. State, 386 So. 3d 407, 409 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (quoting Tingle v. State, 285 So. 3d 708, 710 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)). “The petitioner bears the burden of showing he is entitled to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Williamson v. State, 269 So. 3d 421, 424 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)).

Discussion ¶5. Appealing the circuit court’s order, Castillo-Valencia argues that the court did not (1) afford him an opportunity to present any evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) allow him “to explain why the motion was filed over three years ago”; or (3) “resolv[e] all claims raised by Appellant in his habeas petition.” These arguments are essentially identical to those raised in his prior appeal. See Castillo-Valencia, 396 So. 3d at 1215-16 (¶4).

¶6. We find that the circuit court properly found that Castillo-Valencia’s PCR motion is barred as a successive motion under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-39-23(6).1 We also find no error in the circuit court’s finding that his successive PCR motion was “untimely and not subject to any statutory exception.” See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-5(2), 99-39- 5(2)(a)(i)-(ii).

¶7. Lastly, when reviewing Castillo-Valencia’s first PCR motion, this Court held that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim “must fail,” despite the time bar, “because it was not supported by affidavit” as required. Castillo-Valencia, 396 So. 3d at 1216 (¶6) (citing Evans v. State, 237 So. 3d 1271, 1275 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)). Castillo-Valencia has again raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without attaching a supporting affidavit.

“When a movant fails to attach any supporting affidavits and relies solely on his own sworn motion, his ineffective-assistance claim must fail.” Ramsey v. State, 424 So. 3d 330, 336 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Cook v. State, 301 So. 3d 766, 778 (¶36) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)).

¶8. Accordingly, because Castillo-Valencia’s PCR motion is successive, time-barred, and fails to demonstrate that a statutory exception applies, we find no error in the circuit court’s order denying his claims and dismissing the PCR motion.

Section 99-39-23(6) provides that “any order dismissing the petitioner’s motion or otherwise denying relief under this article is a final judgment and . . . shall be a bar to a second or successive motion under this article.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6).

¶9. AFFIRMED.

CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.

EMFINGER, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.