Timmy Roberts v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
219 So. 3d 588
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Timmy Roberts, serving concurrent 12-year MDOC sentences for aggravated assault, received a rule-violation report (RVR) on June 2, 2015 for possession of a cell phone while at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility.
- Investigator Brady Sistrunk searched Roberts’s cell, recovered a deodorant container that concealed a cell phone, and reported Roberts resisted initial orders during the search.
- A disciplinary hearing was held June 16, 2015; the hearing officer found Roberts guilty. Roberts appealed through MDOC’s Administrative Remedy Program (ARP); MDOC denied relief on June 23, 2015.
- Roberts filed for judicial review in Hinds County Circuit Court (filed July 20, 2015); the circuit court affirmed the ARP decision on December 15, 2015. Roberts appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- Roberts argued (1) improper venue, (2) due-process violation for hearing delay beyond seven working days, (3) investigator failed to investigate, and (4) insufficient evidentiary support for the finding.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding MDOC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate procedural or constitutional rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue for judicial review | Roberts filed in Hinds County though he was housed in Leake County; contest venue | MDOC argued appeal should have been filed in county where prisoner resides (Leake) | Court: MDOC waived venue objection by not timely asserting it in circuit court; issue waived and not fatal |
| Timeliness of disciplinary hearing | Hearing occurred ten working days after RVR; MDOC violated due process by not holding hearing within seven working days and failing to explain delay in writing | MDOC: timeframes are advisory per SOP; delay attributed to facility lockdown; not a basis for dismissal | Court: No due-process violation; time limits are advisory and record shows reason for delay |
| Adequacy of investigation | Investigator failed to investigate, depriving Roberts of due process | MDOC: investigation began within 24 hours; investigator recovered phone concealed in deodorant container and documented events | Court: Substantial evidence supported finding of guilt; investigation and evidence adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for appeals from administrative agencies)
- Putnam v. Epps, 63 So. 3d 547 (Miss. 2011) (venue for ARP appeals governed by general civil venue statutes)
- Flight Line Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So. 2d 1149 (Miss. 1992) (plaintiff selects among permissible venues; venue objections waived if not timely asserted)
- Fluker v. State, 200 So. 3d 1148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (improper venue is waivable and grounds for transfer, not dismissal)
- Harrington v. Office of Miss. Sec’y of State, 129 So. 3d 153 (Miss. 2013) (trial court not in error for matters not presented to it)
- Ross v. Epps, 922 So. 2d 847 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (rebuttable presumption favoring agency decisions on administrative appeals)