Elkins v. State
116 So. 3d 185
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Elkins pled guilty to murder in 1995 and was sentenced to life; he was granted conditional parole in 2007 and moved to Chicago.
- On June 4, 2009, Elkins was arrested in Chicago for domestic battery; an Illinois preliminary parole hearing found probable cause.
- The Chicago charge was dismissed by nolle prosequi on June 19, 2009; the alleged victim later executed an affidavit recanting the allegation.
- Elkins was extradited to Mississippi, waived a preliminary revocation hearing, and the Mississippi Parole Board revoked his parole on November 4, 2009, returning him to prison for life.
- Elkins filed a PCR motion alleging unlawful parole revocation; the trial court summarily dismissed the PCR without an evidentiary hearing.
- The appellate court found the record lacked any statement of the specific evidence the Board relied on and remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the dismissal (nol prosequi) made proof beyond mere arrest necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole revocation was lawful where underlying criminal charge was nol prosequi | Elkins: revocation rested solely on a dismissed arrest and therefore was unlawful without additional proof of violating parole terms | State: Board and trial court treated arrest and related reports as sufficient to show parole violation | Reversed and remanded for evidentiary hearing — dismissal/nol prossecui means arrest alone is insufficient absent other proof |
| Whether due-process/parole procedures required a written statement of evidence relied on | Elkins: Board failed to provide the required written statement explaining evidence and reasons | State: relied on MDOC reports and hearing officer recommendations to justify revocation | Court: Board did not provide such supporting statement in the record; this omission supports remand for hearing |
| Whether a nol prosequi forecloses revocation based on same underlying acts | Elkins: dismissal requires the State to present actual proof of the violating act at revocation hearing | State: argues lower evidentiary standard for revocation permits reliance on arrest/related reports | Court: Dismissal does not per se preclude revocation, but when charges are dismissed before the revocation hearing, State must present proof beyond mere arrest |
| Adequacy of the trial court's summary dismissal of PCR without hearing | Elkins: summary dismissal improper given unresolved factual record and missing revocation hearing transcript | State: trial court found State had clearly proven violation | Court: summary dismissal was improper; remanded for evidentiary hearing because record was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Ruth, 556 So.2d 1059 (Miss. 1990) (arrest alone insufficient to revoke parole; State must show violation of parole conditions)
- Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) (due-process requires written statement of evidence and reasons for revocation)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (established minimum due-process protections in parole revocation proceedings)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due-process principles applicable to probation revocation)
- Brown v. State, 864 So.2d 1058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation)
- Morris v. State, 66 So.3d 716 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (when charges are dismissed before revocation hearing, State must offer actual proof of violating acts)