James Ratcliff v. State of Mississippi
224 So. 3d 99
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2016Background
- James Ratcliff pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 30 years, with 25 years suspended and 5 years to serve; the suspended sentence included a banishment condition barring him from Forrest, Perry, and Lamar Counties.
- Ratcliff filed multiple postconviction-relief (PCR) motions; his third PCR was dismissed as successive, but this Court reversed and remanded to assess the legality of the banishment clause.
- The circuit court vacated the banishment clause after Mackey v. State, and later ratified revocation of Ratcliff’s suspended sentence based on separate violations: two misdemeanor shoplifting convictions and failure to pay supervision fees.
- The State had earlier filed a revocation petition alleging a banishment violation (Ratcliff was found in Hattiesburg), but the court did not revoke the suspension on that ground.
- Ratcliff appealed, arguing his case was controlled by Mackey and Means and that vacating the banishment should preclude revocation; the circuit court and this Court rejected that equivalence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banishment clause was legally invalid and required reversal of revocation | Ratcliff: his case is identical to Mackey/Means; revocation was based on banishment violation and thus improper | State/Court: banishment clause was vacated, but revocation was based on separate criminal activity and fee violations | Court: Banishment clause vacated, but revocation stands because it was based on independent violations of postrelease supervision |
| Whether vacating the banishment clause nullified the court’s authority to revoke the suspended sentence | Ratcliff: vacatur removed the basis to send him to serve the suspended term | State/Court: original sentencing conditions already included prohibition on criminal activity; revocation enforced original terms independent of banishment | Court: Vacating banishment did not prevent revocation for other violations that existed from sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mackey v. State, 37 So. 3d 1161 (Miss. 2010) (trial court may not revoke suspended sentence based solely on an unsupported banishment; banishment must be factually supported and articulated)
- Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (remanding to determine whether banishment complied with due-process requirements; if not, vacate revocation and reinstate sentence without banishment)
- Ratcliff v. State, 120 So. 3d 1058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior panel reversed dismissal of Ratcliff's successive PCR to allow circuit court to consider legality of banishment clause)