Celestine v. State, 143 So. 3d 633

Celestine was sentenced in 2008 to 10 years MDOC with 8 years suspended and 5 years PRS; two years to be served in prison and eight years suspended plus PRS.
In April 2010, Celestine’s PRS was revoked after testing positive for alcohol, violating PRS terms.
An April 19, 2010 revocation hearing occurred; Celestine admitted alcohol use and the circuit court revoked PRS, sending him back to prison.
Celestine filed a February 2011 motion for reconsideration treated as PCR; denied.
He later filed a July 2012 document alleging improper testing procedures treated as PCR and dismissed as a successive writ.
A December 2012 filing was treated as PCR and dismissed as a successive writ; Celestine appeals the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural bar of claims from prior PCR	Celestine’s issues were not previously adjudicated.	Issues were previously adjudicated; barred as successive writs.	Procedural bar upheld; dismissal affirmed.
Confrontation rights at the revocation hearing	Lab analyst testimony was required; report alone violated confrontation rights.	Due process allows use of the report without live testimony; no error.	No error found; issues procedurally barred due to lack of contemporaneous objection.
Standard of proof for PRS revocation	State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.	Preponderance of the evidence suffices to revoke PRS.	Preponderance standard applicable; substantial evidence supports revocation.

Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) (due-process requirements in revocation hearings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 1972) (parole revocation not criminal prosecution; minimal due process)
Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786 (Miss. 1991) (contemporaneous objection bars appeal issues)
McClinton v. State, 799 So.2d 123 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (preponderance standard for PRS revocation)
Carbin v. State, 942 So.2d 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review for PCR denials)