245 So. 3d 552
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Only Al-Khidhr was indicted on two separate Harrison County charges (unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of a controlled substance) and pleaded guilty to both on December 3, 2013.
- He received consecutive MDOC sentences: five years (firearm) and four years (drug, enhanced as habitual offender).
- He was credited with 613 days of pre-trial confinement through the plea date; he does not dispute the 613-day figure but contends it should be applied separately to each consecutive sentence.
- Al-Khidhr filed an MDOC ARP seeking double credit; MDOC denied the request and he sought judicial review in Rankin County Circuit Court, which dismissed his petition; he appealed to this Court.
- MDOC records show Al-Khidhr was released July 14, 2017; the Court nonetheless addressed the appeal under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-trial jail credit may be applied separately to each consecutive sentence (double credit) | Al-Khidhr: 613 days should be credited to each sentence because the sentencing order grants credit “as to these charges.” | MDOC: A prisoner cannot receive credit twice for the same pre-trial jail time; 613 days correctly applied once. | Court: Denied double credit; prisoner cannot receive the same presentence credit twice (affirms MDOC). |
| Whether the appeal is moot due to prisoner’s release | Al-Khidhr: (implicit) relief still warranted. | MDOC: Case is moot because Al-Khidhr was released; no live controversy. | Court: Case is technically moot but addressed under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception and decided on the merits. |
| Standard of review for agency decision | Al-Khidhr: agency decision was incorrect. | MDOC: decision supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious. | Court: Applies substantial-evidence/arbitrary-or-capricious standard and finds MDOC’s decision supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welch v. Epps, 158 So. 3d 360 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (sets standard of review for administrative decisions)
- J.E.W. v. T.G.S., 935 So. 2d 954 (Miss. 2006) (mootness principles for appellate review)
- Monaghan v. Blue Bell Inc., 393 So. 2d 466 (Miss. 1980) (mootness doctrine discussion)
- Smith v. State, 229 So. 3d 178 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (application of the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
- Foster v. Durr, 123 So. 3d 940 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that presentence jail time cannot be credited twice for multiple offenses)