Tipton v. State
2014 Miss. LEXIS 542
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Frank Tipton was convicted of extortion and sentenced to 1 year in MDOC custody plus 2 years in the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) house-arrest, with the remainder suspended. He served 300 days in prison and two years under ISP house arrest.
- Tipton’s criminal conviction was reversed and vacated by this Court; he then sued under Mississippi’s wrongful-conviction compensation statutes (Miss. Code Ann. §§ 11-44-1 to -7) seeking payment for both prison time and ISP time.
- The State conceded liability for the 300 days in prison but argued ISP house-arrest was not "imprisonment" under the compensation statutes and thus not compensable.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the State on the ISP claim; Tipton appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court majority held ISP confinement constitutes "imprisonment" for purposes of the wrongful-conviction compensation scheme and reversed, awarding Tipton compensation for ISP time; a dissent would have limited compensation to traditional incarceration and invoked judicial estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time served under ISP house arrest is "imprisonment" under Mississippi's wrongful-conviction compensation statutes | Tipton: ISP is confinement under MDOC jurisdiction and thus counts as imprisonment for compensation | State: ISP is an "alternative to incarceration," not imprisonment, so ISP time is not compensable | Held: ISP confinement qualifies as "imprisonment" under the statutes; Tipton entitled to compensation for ISP time |
| Proper statutory interpretation standard | Tipton: "Imprisonment" can mean confinement beyond physical prison; statutes aimed to compensate uniquely victimized wrongfully convicted persons | State: Statute plainly requires imprisonment/incarceration; house arrest is lesser confinement not intended by statute | Held: Court used statutory interpretation and legislative purpose, concluding "imprisonment" includes ISP confinement |
| Relevance of prior criminal appeal language characterizing ISP as "alternative to incarceration" | Tipton: Prior criminal case addressed different issue (statutory construction in criminal context) and does not bind civil compensation interpretation | State: Tipton's criminal success characterized ISP as an alternative to incarceration; allowing a contradictory civil position should be barred by judicial estoppel | Held: Majority: criminal opinion addressed different legal question and does not control here; dissent: would apply judicial estoppel and deny ISP compensation |
| Usefulness of false-imprisonment tort principles to interpret "imprisonment" | Tipton: False-imprisonment doctrine shows confinement can occur outside prison walls and informs statutory meaning | State: Compensation statute language is controlling; common-law tort analogies insufficient | Held: Majority found common-law confinement principles persuasive to conclude ISP confinement is imprisonment for compensation purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Poppenheimer v. Estate of Coyle, 98 So.3d 1059 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Whitaker v. Limeco Corp., 32 So.3d 429 (Miss. 2010) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Tipton v. State, 41 So.3d 679 (Miss. 2010) (criminal reversal of Tipton's conviction; discussed ISP as an alternative to incarceration in criminal context)
- Lewis v. State, 761 So.2d 922 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (Court of Appeals: house arrest is a form of confinement under MDOC jurisdiction)
- Brown v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 906 So.2d 833 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (removal from ISP to prison is a reclassification not implicating a liberty interest)
- Ivory v. State, 999 So.2d 420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (describing ISP as an alternative form of confinement)
- Turner v. Hudson Salvage, Inc., 709 So.2d 425 (Miss. 1998) (false-imprisonment can occur outside a traditional prison setting)
- Alpha Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Jackson, 801 So.2d 709 (Miss. 2001) (false-imprisonment liability where plaintiff detained by employees)
- Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1 (Miss. 2000) (false-imprisonment principles; confinement need not occur inside prison)