Jones v. State
70 So. 3d 255
Miss. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jones pled guilty in 2003 to possession of 6.2 grams of cocaine and was sentenced to 16 years, six years served in MDOC and ten years suspended subject to PRS.
- Pleas/hearing and sentencing documents reflect PRS terms; written order and plea transcript conflict only on the length of PRS noted as five vs ten years.
- Jones filed a PCR during custody alleging involuntary plea and ineffective assistance; circuit court summarily denied in 2003, affirmed on appeal in 2004.
- In 2008, after initial MDOC term, Jones’s PRS was revoked for failure to report, a marijuana positive, and urine-test refusal; he was ordered to complete the ten-year suspended sentence.
- Jones again filed a PCR challenging the revocation; circuit court summarily dismissed in 2009; Jones appeals.
- On appeal, Jones argues PCR timeliness/bar issues, failure to orally inform suspended-sentence terms, and due-process concerns at revocation hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCR timeliness and bars | Jones's sentence expire exception should defeat time/bar | Jones is barred by three-year and successive-writ statutes | PCR bars do not apply; exception applies because sentence had not expired |
| Oral informing of suspended-sentence terms | Artis required oral notice of terms before revocation | Jones was informed in writing; Artis not controlling | Written notice suffices; Artis not applicable |
| Due process at revocation hearing | Indigent defendant entitled to appointed counsel and witnesses | Indigent counsel not per se required; discretionary | No automatic right to appointment; hearing afforded opportunity to present evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (minimum due-process requirements for revocation hearings)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (due-process framework for probation/parole revocation)
- Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) (adopts Gagnon due-process requirements in Mississippi revocation hearings)
- Pruitt v. State, 958 So.2d 302 (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (revocation issues not too complex to require counsel)
- Boutwell v. State, 847 So.2d 294 (Miss.Ct.App.2003) (written order prevails over conflicting oral pronouncement)
- Artis v. State, 643 So.2d 533 (Miss.1994) (due-process requires term information, but may be written)
- MeClinton v. State, 799 So.2d 123 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (informational requirements for suspended sentences)