Hopson v. Miss. State Parole Bd.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00643-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00643-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2008 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Denial of parole - Due process - Equal protection Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-02-2007 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: DISMISSED PETITION TO SHOW CAUSE Case Number: 2007-0017-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | EDWARD JAMES HOPSON A/K/A EDWARD J. HOPSON |
EDWARD JAMES HOPSON (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI STATE PAROLE BOARD | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JANE L. MAPP |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Denial of parole - Due process - Equal protection |
| Summary of the Facts: | Edward Hopson, a state inmate in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, appeals the Mississippi State Parole Board’s dismissal of his motion to show cause regarding the evidence supporting the denial of his parole. He appealed to circuit court which dismissed his appeal. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Hopson argues that the denial of his parole was based, in part, on false information. Hopson argues he had no prior police or juvenile record and claimed that the parole board was incorrect in finding that he was incapable of being a law-abiding citizen. By statute, the Parole Board is given absolute discretion to determine who is entitled to parole within the boundaries of factors set forth in section 47-7-3. If the Parole Board is under no obligation to have the offender present at his parole hearing, it logically follows that the Board is under no obligation to disclose its file to the offender. Thus, there was no error in the dismissal of Hopson’s petition to show cause. Hopson also argues that he has been denied due process under the law and equal protection. Hopson has failed to show that his due process rights have been violated by the parole board’s actions. While race is a suspect class entitled to strict scrutiny, Hopson has failed to show evidence either in his petition or in the record that establishes that he suffered any equal protection violation by the application of the statute based on a suspect classification. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
