Andrew Jamison a/k/a Andrew L. Jamison v. State of Mississippi, 332 So.3d 892

Background

In 2005 Jamison was convicted by a jury of attempted armed robbery and possession of a stolen firearm; he was sentenced to 10 years with 7 years post-release supervision (PRS) and consecutive five years for the firearm conviction.
Jamison did not timely appeal; his 2006 motion for an out-of-time appeal was denied and he did not appeal that denial.
In June 2012 Jamison was arrested in Shelby County, Tennessee, with a Colt .32 revolver; federal charges followed and he was later convicted in federal court and served roughly seven years.
MDOC filed an affidavit in DeSoto County in August 2013 alleging PRS violations based on the 2012 firearm incident; Jamison was extradited and in August 2019 admitted possessing the firearm at a revocation hearing.
The trial court revoked the remaining two years of Jamison’s PRS and recommitted him to MDOC custody; Jamison filed a pro se PCR asserting improper revocation, ineffective assistance for failure to appeal, and insufficiency of the 2005 evidence.
The circuit court dismissed the PCR as meritless and/or procedurally barred; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Jamison's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Was revocation of PRS improper because the MDOC affidavit was a 'sham' and underlying charges were dismissed?	The 2012 burglary and federal firearm charges were dismissed, so there was no factual basis to revoke PRS.	Revocation was based on Jamison's possession of a firearm (a PRS condition violation); Jamison admitted possession at the hearing and was later federally convicted—sufficient basis to revoke.	Court: Revocation proper; admission of possession and later federal conviction suffice even if underlying state charge was abandoned.
2) Was Jamison denied due process because no preliminary hearing within 72 hours was held?	The court failed to hold a preliminary revocation hearing under §47-7-37(3).	Jamison waived the issue by not raising it at the final hearing; any lack of a separate preliminary hearing was harmless because minimum due-process protections were provided.	Court: Issue waived and, in any event, harmless—minimum due-process requirements were met and no prejudice shown.
3) Was counsel ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal or secure an out-of-time appeal?	Trial counsel 'abandoned' Jamison and agreed to file an appeal; counsel’s failure deprived Jamison of the right to appeal.	Record shows judge advised Jamison of appeal rights and counsel did not agree to file the appeal; Jamison offered no evidence counsel promised to appeal.	Court: Ineffective-assistance claim fails—no deficient performance shown; out-of-time appeal denied previously and claim is without merit.
4) Are claims about insufficiency of evidence and expert testimony at the 2005 trial cognizable in this late PCR?	Evidence was insufficient (no overt act, no victim statement); expert fingerprint testimony was improper.	These issues should have been raised on direct appeal; they are time-barred or successive in PCR and not newly proved.	Court: Procedurally barred and meritless on PCR—claims should have been raised on direct appeal and no new evidence shown.

Key Cases Cited

McCalpin v. State, 166 So. 3d 24 (Miss. 2013) (probation may be revoked if more likely than not a violation occurred; conviction not required)
Riely v. State, 562 So. 2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) (minimum due-process requirements and written statement of reasons for revocation)
Friday v. State, 141 So. 3d 18 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (failure to hold separate preliminary hearing is harmless absent prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Osborn v. State, 695 So. 2d 570 (Miss. 1997) (trial courts should advise defendants on appellate rights at sentencing)
Jones v. State, 270 So. 3d 1055 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (failure to raise lack of preliminary revocation hearing at revocation hearing waives the issue)