Monroe Randle v. State of Mississippi
210 So. 3d 1022
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Randle was convicted of murder in 1980 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- He was granted conditional parole on February 24, 2010.
- In July 2012, his parole was revoked following arrest for simple assault by threat and firearm possession.
- Randle filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) motion challenging the parole revocation.
- The circuit court summarily dismissed the PCR motion as lacking authority; the Court of Appeals reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred by dismissing PCR without a hearing. | Randle argues the court should hear his claims. | State contends dismissal was proper but merits could be considered. | Yes; reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether parole revocation requires conviction of the underlying crimes. | Parole revocation based on arrests, not convictions. | Parole revocation may proceed on evidence of violation, not necessarily a conviction. | Parolee must show violation of terms; conviction not required. |
| Whether due-process requires a written statement of evidence and reasons for revocation. | Randle is entitled to a writing detailing the evidence and reasons. | Not specifically addressed beyond existing due-process standards. | Parolees are entitled to a written statement of the evidence and reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elkins v. State, 116 So. 3d 185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (requires showing violation of parole terms; supports written findings)
- Moore v. Ruth, 556 So. 2d 1059 (Miss. 1990) (mere arrest is not a violation of probation)
- Brown v. State, 864 So. 2d 1058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (parolees require evidence of violation; due-process considerations)
- Moore v. State, 587 So. 2d 1193 (Miss. 1991) (arrests alone do not establish violation of probation)
- Fortenberry v. State, 151 So. 3d 222 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for PCR dismissal is clearly erroneous if not conducted with hearing)
- Means v. State, 43 So. 3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (de novo review for issues of law in PCR)