Morris v. State
66 So. 3d 716
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Morris, on ERS, fought his father-in-law Lambert, sending Lambert to the hospital.
- MDOC revoked Morris's ERS, concluding he violated rules by fighting; Morris was returned to custody.
- A grand jury later returned a no-bill indictment for domestic aggravated assault; Morris was not prosecuted on the charge.
- Morris challenged the ERS revocation via post-conviction relief (PCR); venue was transferred to Jefferson County Circuit Court.
- Circuit court denied PCR; on appeal, Mississippi Court of Appeals reversed and rendered to clear Morris's record of the ERS violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there actual proof Morris violated ERS? | Morris asserted self-defense; evidence supports no ERS violation. | MDOC needed proof of violation beyond arrest; fight constitutes violation absent self-defense evidence. | ER S revocation reversed; actual proof insufficient to show ERS violation. |
| Did pre-hearing sentence re-computation prejudice Morris? | Re-computation before hearing implied bias and due process concerns. | Re-computation permissible and did not prejudice Morris if he was found not guilty. | Issue meritless; no due process/equal protection violation found. |
| Was this PCR review or administrative-ARP review? Proper standard of review? | Appeal should be PCR review; proper standard is post-conviction. | MDOC ARP and administrative decision; review should assess arbitrariness of agency decision. | Court treated as PCR review but applied appropriate standard; result consistent with ARP record. |
| Does no-bill indictment affect ERS revocation outcome? | No indictment undermines basis for revocation. | Revocation based on ERS rule violations; indictment status is separate. | No effect on ERS revocation; record requires clearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. State, 667 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1995) (actual proof required for parole-like revocation)
- Moore v. Ruth, 556 So.2d 1059 (Miss. 1990) (arrest alone cannot prove violation; need proof of act)
- Younger v. State, 749 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 2003) (criminal conduct must be proven to revoke probation)
- Grayson v. State, 648 So.2d 1129 (Miss. 1994) (probation revocation requires proof of violation)
- Hardin v. State, 878 So.2d 111 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (evidence standard for probation violations applies)
- Stanley v. Turner, 846 So.2d 279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (ARP exhaustion governs when reviewing MR/ERs)
- Sanders v. Miss. Dep't of Corrs., 912 So.2d 189 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (scope of administrative-review decisions)
- Griffis v. Miss. Dep't of Corrs., 809 So.2d 779 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (agency decision review standards)