120 So. 3d 983
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Culbert sentenced to 30 years for sexual battery and 6 years for kidnapping, to run consecutively; earned-time credited him with almost eight years, reducing his total; MDOC removed the earned time.
- Culbert exhausted MDOC administrative relief and filed suit in Jefferson County Circuit Court seeking relief from the earned time removal.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Culbert appeals asserting parole entitlement, earned-time entitlement, due-process violation, and Rule 52(b) findings.
- Statutes: 1995 parole/earned-time framework; 47-5-139(l)(d) bars earned-time for sex offenses; 47-5-139(2) contemplates commutation across consecutive sentences; kidnapping not defined as sex offense under prior code.
- Court references Adams v. Epps for due-process framework and Guy v. Box regarding earned time during serving the sentence; Rule 52 considerations discussed; final holding: dismissal affirmed.
- Note: Current statutory scheme for parole referenced from McGovern v. MDOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parole eligibility after 1995 law | Culbert seeks parole eligibility on post-1995 crimes | Culbert's crimes after 1995 disqualify parole | Culbert not entitled to parole for post-1995 offenses |
| Earned-time allowance classification | Seeks earned time under 47-5-139(2) across consecutive sentences | Exclusion under 47-5-139(l)(d) applies while serving sex offense sentence | Culbert barred from earned time for sexual-battery sentence; possible application after completing mandatory portion may apply to kidnapping, but issue meritorious only as to sex offense time |
| Due-process/ex post facto concerns | MDOC time sheets showed earned time unlawfully | Time never actually accrued due to ineligibility; clerical error corrected | No due-process violation; time never accrued; complaint properly dismissed per Adams v. Epps |
| Rule 52(b) findings | Requests additional findings | Rule 52(b) inapplicable; no trial on the merits | Rule 52(b) inapplicable; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Epps, 900 So.2d 1210 (Miss.Ct.App.2005) (due-process/ex post facto analysis when earned time is not actually earned)
- Guy v. Box, 925 So.2d 139 (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (inmate barred from earned-time until serving mandatory portion)
- Rose v. Tullos, 994 So.2d 734 (Miss.2008) (de novo standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- McGovern v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 89 So.3d 69 (Miss.Ct.App.2011) (parole/earned-time framework referenced by court)