Charles J. Rudd a/k/a Charles Rudd v. State of Mississippi;, 303 So.3d 841

Rudd was convicted of armed robbery in 2002 and sentenced in 2003 to 20 years with 10 suspended and five years supervised probation.
While on probation, Rudd was arrested on November 26, 2018 for possession with intent to distribute (marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids) and being a felon in possession of firearms.
At the March 19, 2019 probation-revocation hearing, officers testified that suspected drugs and two firearms were found in Rudd’s vehicle (one .40 in the center console by the driver, one 9mm in the rear seat pocket).
Rudd sought to introduce an affidavit from a passenger (LaMonica Burns) claiming ownership of the firearms; the trial court excluded it for lack of authentication, and Rudd did not call Burns to testify.
The trial court found Rudd constructively possessed the .40-caliber firearm and revoked his probation; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
Rudd appealed the revocation and denial of reconsideration; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because probation-revocation orders are not appealable and directed Rudd to post-conviction relief remedies.

Issue	Rudd's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the probation-revocation order and denial of reconsideration are appealable	Rudd appealed the revocation and denial of his motion for reconsideration seeking review.	The State maintained that orders revoking probation (and related denial of reconsideration) are not appealable; relief lies via post-conviction collateral relief.	Appeal dismissed without prejudice; revocation orders not appealable; remedy is post-conviction relief.
Whether the trial court erred by excluding Burns’s affidavit and by holding the revocation hearing pre-indictment	Rudd argued the affidavit should have been admitted and claimed the court’s practice was to wait until after indictment.	The State argued the affidavit was unauthenticated and the timing claim was false.	Court properly excluded the unauthenticated affidavit; trial court said outcome would be the same even if admitted and rejected the timing claim; but denial is not appealable.

Beasley v. State, 795 So. 2d 539 (Miss. 2001) (probation-revocation orders are not appealable)
Payne v. State, 966 So. 2d 1266 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (orders revoking probation must be challenged via post-conviction relief)
Massingille v. State, 878 So. 2d 252 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (same—probation revocation complaints belong in post-conviction proceedings)
Swift v. State, 952 So. 2d 1039 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (mislabeling a post-conviction claim does not convert an otherwise unappealable order into an appealable one)
Havard v. State, 83 So. 3d 452 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (jurisdictional issues reviewed de novo)