the burglary sentence, November 9, 1989, and adding on twenty years for the murder sentences. Ducksworth claims this made his burglary sentence consecutive, not concurrent, contradicting his sentencing order. ¶ 6. On October 6, 2009, the Parole Board took action. Acknowledging Ducks-worth’s parole-eligibility date as August 5, 2008, the Parole Board denied Ducksworth parole for a litany of reasons, including an insufficient amount of time served, and continued his next parole hearing until October 2012. ¶ 7. In May 2011, Ducksworth filed a PCR motion in the Forrest County Circuit Court. He claimed his sentence was “illegal” because “his parole date was not honored on the day he should have become eligible by the fact that his general burglary conviction ran consecutive ss.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11. But what Ducksworth is really
holding that sentence of fortyeight months in state prison as a condition of probation violated section 948032 and was an illegal sentence holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal holding that an issue of ineffective assistance of counsel is rendered moot when a defendant receives an illegal sentence holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable holding pcr motions alleging an illegal sentence are not subject to the timebar