Anderson v. State, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 739

Anderson filed a post-conviction relief petition in the Panola County Circuit Court challenging the revocation of his 10-year post-release supervision (PRS) imposed with a suspended portion after a guilty plea to aggravated assault.
Originally sentenced in 2009 to five days in MDOC and 10 years PRS (2 years reporting, 8 years non-reporting) under a plea agreement approved by the circuit court.
In 2009, Anderson’s PRS was revoked for multiple violations (nonpayment of restitution and costs, failure to report, lack of employment, marijuana use, and various driving offenses).
The circuit court denied the PCR motion on September 20, 2010, and Anderson appealed challenging jurisdiction, due process, double jeopardy, ineffective assistance, willful misconduct, and absence of findings of fact.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the sentence and revocation lawful, due process satisfied, no improper double jeopardy, and no reversible error in the other challenged issues.
The court noted the PCR motion was properly dismissed under Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-11 and that revocation of PRS is a criminal proceeding, not civil, thus Rule 52 findings were not required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Illegal sentence by PRS revocation	Anderson argues no suspended portion existed to revoke.	State contends PRS is a separate post-release term; revocation enforceable under statute.	No merit; revocation proper under statute.
Circuit court jurisdiction over PRS revocation	Panola lacked jurisdiction since no suspended sentence was previously imposed.	Original sentencing court retains PRS jurisdiction; revival authorized by statute.	Without merit; court had jurisdiction.
Due process at PRS revocation hearing	Six asserted due-process deficiencies, including cross-examination and notice.	Deficiencies cured; cross-examination of witnesses occurred; notices adequate.	Due process satisfied; issues without merit.
Double jeopardy	Revocation and eight-year MDOC term exceeds original sentence and violates double jeopardy.	No new sentence; cutoff by revocation and enforcement of the original term.	No double jeopardy; issue without merit.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to subpoena witnesses who allegedly would have shown perjury.	Anderson represented himself at the PRS revocation hearing; ineffective assistance claims fail.	Meritless; self-representation defeats claim.

State v. Santiago, 773 So.2d 921 (Miss. 2000) (PCR may be summarily dismissed if no relief is due)
Turner v. State, 590 So.2d 871 (Miss. 1991) (plainly cannot obtain relief under the Act)
Johnson v. State, 925 So.2d 86 (Miss. 2006) (PRs and suspensions interplay guidance)
Brunson v. State, 796 So.2d 284 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishes probation from PRS in determining applicability)
Carter v. State, 754 So.2d 1207 (Miss. 2000) (probation vs. sentence issue guidance)
Davis v. State, 36 So.3d 456 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims require more than affidavits)
Moody v. State, 644 So.2d 451 (Miss. 1994) (standards for ineffective assistance in PCR context)
Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 388 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (PRS revocation evidence sufficiency)
Grayson v. State, 648 So.2d 1129 (Miss. 1994) (notice requirement in revocation context)
Loisel v. State, 995 So.2d 850 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (due-process framework for revocation hearings)
Agent v. State, 30 So.3d 370 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (due-process considerations in probation-related matters)