Thomas Holder v. State of Mississippi
239 So. 3d 537
Miss. Ct. App. Hist.2017Background
- Thomas Holder pled guilty to touching a child for lustful purposes and received a 15-year sentence, which was suspended subject to conditions.
- One suspended-sentence condition required Holder to "depart from Hattiesburg" and stay at least 100 miles away for the suspension period (Holder signed the plea petition acknowledging this).
- Holder later provided a false address on his sex-offender registration form, violating a separate registration condition.
- The circuit court revoked Holder’s suspended sentence for the false-registration violation and ordered him to serve the full 15-year MDOC term.
- Holder filed a second motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) arguing the banishment condition made his guilty plea void; the circuit court denied relief and Holder appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the banishment issue was moot because Holder’s suspended sentence was revoked and he is ineligible for parole/earned time due to his sex-conviction status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the banishment condition rendered Holder's guilty plea void | The banishment clause was illegal/void because the court did not make on-the-record findings justifying banishment, so the plea is invalid | The banishment clause does not void the plea and did not cause the revocation; revocation was for a separate registration violation | Court: Banishment clause does not void the plea; revocation valid; PCR denied and affirmed |
| Whether the circuit court must make findings about the banishment clause now | Holder: Circuit court should make on-the-record findings per Means/Mackey/McCreary and PCR is excepted from procedural bar | State: Issue is moot because suspended sentence was revoked and Holder will serve sentence without parole/earned time; no practical relief possible | Court: Moot — no practical benefit from adjudicating the banishment issue; decline to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Means v. State, 43 So.3d 438 (Miss. 2010) (court must explain on the record reasons for and benefits of banishment)
- Mackey v. State, 37 So.3d 1161 (Miss. 2010) (arbitrary banishment will not be upheld; justification must be in the record)
- McCreary v. State, 582 So.2d 425 (Miss. 1991) (factors for assessing reasonableness and constitutionality of banishment conditions)
- Ratcliff v. State, 224 So.3d 99 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (separate-condition violations can sustain revocation irrespective of other possibly invalid conditions)
- Holder v. State, 137 So.3d 884 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (prior PCR denial affirmed)
- Hunt v. MDOC, 217 So.3d 789 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (mootness where relief would provide no practical benefit)