Patrick Fluker v. State of Mississippi
200 So. 3d 1148
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Patrick Fluker pled guilty to armed robbery in 2007 and received a 15-year sentence; by statute he is ineligible for parole under the law in effect at conviction.
- In November 2014 Fluker filed a petition in Forrest County circuit court against the Mississippi Parole Board seeking relief, alleging a 2014 statute expanded parole eligibility prospectively and that excluding those convicted on or before July 1, 2014 violates equal protection.
- The circuit court summarily dismissed Fluker’s petition; Fluker appealed; the majority affirms dismissal on the merits.
- The majority treats the claim as an equal protection challenge to prospective application of parole-eligibility changes and holds prospective application is rationally related to legitimate legislative ends.
- The majority also explains venue and process defenses were not raised by the Parole Board on appeal and are ordinarily waivable/non-jurisdictional; therefore the court decides the case on the merits.
- A dissent (James, J.) would not reach the merits: he contends the petition was improperly filed (venue/jurisdiction), the Parole Board was not properly served/parties not properly named, and the trial court lacked authority to hear the matter on the merits, so he would dismiss without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection challenge to prospective parole-eligibility change | Fluker: treating those convicted before July 1, 2014 differently violates Equal Protection | State/majority: prospective application of new parole eligibility is rational and not invidious; legislation may operate prospectively | Held for State: prospective expansion is rationally related to legitimate legislative purpose; equal protection claim fails |
| Proper characterization of action (PCR motion v. civil action against Parole Board) | Fluker: framed collateral challenge seeking relief from Parole Board decision; not seeking to vacate conviction/sentence | Dissent: petitioner’s relief is against Parole Board, not cognizable as PCR; venue and filing rules differ | Majority: treat as civil action for purposes of appeal and decide merits; dissent would treat as non-PCR and raise venue/jurisdiction defects |
| Venue and transfer vs dismissal | Dissent: case filed in wrong county and trial court lacked jurisdiction; trial court should have dismissed | Majority: venue is generally non-jurisdictional and waivable; improper venue warrants transfer if timely raised | Held: Court declines to decide venue because merits dispositive; venue argument not raised by Parole Board on appeal so not fatal |
| Sufficiency of process / naming and service of parties | Dissent: Parole Board not properly served/named; absence of process deprives court of power to act | Majority: insufficiency of process can be waived; Parole Board did not raise it on appeal so court may decide merits | Held: Court may decide merits; insufficiency of process not raised and therefore does not bar appellate decision on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Mayabb v. Johnson, 168 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 1999) (prospective application of parole rules can be rational and not constitutionally discriminatory)
- Leake Cty. Coop. v. Barrett’s Dependents, 226 So.2d 608 (Miss. 1969) (improper venue does not itself defeat court’s power to hear case on merits)
- McClurg v. State, 870 So.2d 681 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (dismissal appropriate where parties in interest not named or served and point was specifically raised)
- Ducksworth v. State, 174 So.3d 323 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (similar prisoner claim failed on the merits; court declined to address venue given dispositive merits)
- Fredericks v. Malouf, 82 So.3d 579 (Miss. 2012) (venue is generally an affirmative right that may be waived)