Ducksworth v. State
103 So. 3d 762
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ducksworth filed a May 2009 Administrative Remedy claim alleging miscalculation of parole-date eligibility.
- He is serving two consecutive life sentences for murder, with a burglary sentence made to run concurrently per the sentencing order.
- MDOC initially calculated parole-eligibility date as November 2009, using a method that Ducksworth argues treated burglary as consecutive to life sentences.
- On October 6, 2009, the Parole Board set August 5, 2008 as the parole-eligibility date and denied parole, with a hearing continued to October 2012.
- Ducksworth filed a May 2011 PCR motion arguing the sentencing was illegal because his parole date was not honored, which the circuit court dismissed as time-barred.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court ultimately concluded the parole-eligibility claim is moot because the Parole Board had already acknowledged eligibility, held a hearing, and denied parole by 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCR time bar applies to parole-eligibility claims. | Ducksworth contends time-bar does not apply. | Ducksworth's assertion is improper under the statute. | Time bar inapplicable to parole-eligibility claim. |
| Whether Ducksworth's parole-eligibility claim is moot. | Remedy remains unavailable without earlier relief. | Parole Board already acknowledged eligibility and denied parole. | Claim moot; no further relief available. |
| Whether parole-eligibility constitutes a fundamental right triggering an exception to the time bar. | Illegal-sentence claims are not time-barred due to fundamental rights. | Parole-eligibility is not a fundamental right and subject to policy limits. | Parole-eligibility not a fundamental right; time bar not applicable, but mootness governs. |
| Whether MDOC properly calculated Ducksworth's parole-eligibility date. | MDOC miscalculated by treating burglary as consecutive. | Calculation aligned with the statutory framework and sentencing order. | Not resolved due to mootness; mootness forecloses relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ivy v. State, 731 So.2d 601 (Miss. 1999) (illegal-sentence claims may be excepted from time-bar)
- Weaver v. State, 785 So.2d 1085 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (PCR motions alleging an illegal sentence not subject to time-bar)
- Rochell v. State, 36 So.3d 479 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (parole eligibility is not a fundamental right)
- Lattimore v. Sparkman, 858 So.2d 936 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (parole-eligibility claims original actions proper in circuit court)
- Keys v. State, 67 So.3d 758 (Miss. 2011) (circuit court jurisdiction over parole-eligibility claim; time-bar not applied)
- Fails v. Jefferson Davis Cnty. Pub. Sch. Bd., 95 So.3d 1223 (Miss. 2012) (mootness as rule for appellate review)
- Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So.2d 915 (Miss. 2006) (context for mootness and jurisdictional limits)