Ratcliff v. State
2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 554
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ratcliff pleaded guilty in June 2006 to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 30 years in MDOC, with 5 years to serve and the remainder suspended for good behavior.
- The sentencing order included a banishment clause prohibiting Ratcliff from Forrest, Perry, and Lamar Counties for the duration of the suspended sentence.
- Ratcliff filed pro se PCR motions in May 2007 and August 2010, which the circuit court denied on the merits.
- He filed a third PCR motion in December 2011, which the circuit court dismissed as successive-writ barred.
- On appeal, Ratcliff challenges the banishment clause as illegal and argues the circuit court failed to justify it on the record.
- The majority reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion to determine if the banishment is legally viable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banishment clause renders the sentence illegal. | Ratcliff argues the banishment clause is illegal and not properly justified. | State contends circuit court had authority to impose banishment under applicable standards. | Remanded to determine legality of banishment; not procedurally barred. |
| Whether the record contains on-the-record factual findings supporting the Cobb factors for banishment. | Ratcliff contends the court failed to articulate facts tying the Cobb factors to his case. | State maintains the McCreary factors were considered. | Remand required for explicit on-the-record findings connecting factors to Ratcliff's circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb v. State, 437 So.2d 1218 (Miss. 1983) (banishment must be supported by articulated factual basis)
- McCreary v. State, 582 So.2d 425 (Miss. 1991) (banishment factors; rehabilitative purpose; public policy)
- Mackey v. State, 37 So.3d 1161 (Miss. 2010) (requires on-the-record explanation of banishment reasoning)
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (requires correlation of factors to defendant's circumstances on the record)
- Ward v. State, 107 So.3d 1068 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (successive-writ procedural bar rules)
- Bell v. State, 95 So.3d 760 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (constitutional rights exceptions to procedural bars)
- Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982) (probation conditions affecting constitutional rights)