2013, Sumrell filed his third application with the supreme court, again seeking leave to proceed with his PCR motion in circuit court. In its order responding to Sumrell’s third application for leave to proceed, the supreme court acknowledged that its prior opinion had considered Sumrell’s argument and had found that Sum-rell served more than a year in prison for his robbery conviction. See Sumrell, 972 So.2d at 576 (¶ 16). However, in granting Sumrell’s third application for leave to proceed, the supreme court now found the record ambiguous with regard to the issue and ordered an evidentiary hearing for the. limited purpose of determining whether Sumrell did, in fact, serve a full year in prison for his robbery conviction. 5 . See also King v. State, 527 So.2d 641, 644-45 (Miss.1988)
holding fifteen year hfo mandatory minimum sentences on the three robbery convictions were required to run concurrently with the twentyfive year nonhfo mandatory minimum on the murder sentence recognizing that in the usual case no information or evidence comes to light more than one year after imposition of sentence holding that the four year sentence imposed by the district court was appropriate as it was comparable to the five year sentence for perjury or obstruction of justice holding that where a defendant serves one year or more on concurrent sentences for separate convictions this amounts to serving at least a full year on each sentence and satisfies section 991983 holding that a prior north carolina conviction was for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year if any defendant charged with that crime could receive a sentence of more than one year