Christopher N. Cratin v. Marshall Fisher
235 So. 3d 1434
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher Cratin, incarcerated after 2008 convictions for two counts of fondling and one of sexual battery, sought meritorious earned time (MET) from the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC).
- In April 2016 Cratin filed an ARP grievance claiming MDOC’s exclusion of sex-offense convictions from MET violated state law.
- MDOC denied the ARP grievance in June 2016 and rejected a follow-up letter as a duplicate; Cratin appealed to the Hinds County Circuit Court in September 2016.
- The circuit court issued an "Order of Dismissal," noting uncertainty about its jurisdiction but also addressing the merits and upholding MDOC’s policy "to the extent" it had jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals vacated and remanded for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding Cratin failed to effect proper service on the State and filed his appeal untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service / subject-matter jurisdiction | Cratin asserted he properly served MDOC when appealing the ARP decision | MDOC argued it was never legally summoned or served through the Attorney General per M.R.C.P. 4(d)(5) | Cratin failed to comply with rule requiring service on the Attorney General; circuit court lacked jurisdiction |
| Timeliness of appeal | Cratin implicitly contended his appeal was timely | MDOC and court noted appeal was filed more than 30 days after agency’s final decision (statutory deadline) | Appeal was untimely; filing deadline is jurisdictional, supporting dismissal |
| Merits of MDOC policy denying MET to sex offenders | Cratin argued MDOC’s policy unlawfully denied earned time to sex offenders | MDOC defended its policy as lawful under state law | Majority did not reach the merits because of jurisdictional defects; concurrence would affirm dismissal on procedural grounds but treat result as correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 148 So.3d 403 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing agency decisions)
- Mangum v. Mississippi Parole Board, 76 So.3d 762 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Hill v. State, 165 So.3d 495 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (statutory time to seek judicial review of ARP decisions is jurisdictional)
- Forkner v. State, 227 So.3d 404 (Miss. 2017) (appellate jurisdiction over review of circuit court final judgments)
- Stewart v. Walls, 534 So.2d 1033 (Miss. 1988) (appellate court may affirm a lower court when the right result is reached even if for a different reason)