Morgan v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00428-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-00428-COA ; 2007-CT-00428-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-22-2008 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal; PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-28-2007 Appealed from: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISMISSED Case Number: CV2006-0073BY1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KERRY LOUIS MORGAN A/K/A BONES |
KERRY LOUIS MORGAN (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DESHUN TERRELL MARTIN | ||
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. |
|
| Summary of the Facts: | Kerry Morgan pled guilty to burglary and aggravated assault and was sentenced to thirty years but placed under a term of twenty-eight years and eleven months of post-release supervision. Morgan was subsequently arrested for forgery. As a result, his post-release supervision sentence was revoked by the trial court. Morgan filed a motion for post-conviction relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process Morgan argues that he is being illegally confined and that his probation was unlawfully revoked because the trial court failed to sustain a conviction of a crime or other term and condition of release before directing Morgan to be confined in prison. The minimum due process requirements applicable to probation revocation hearings include written notice of the claimed violations of probation; disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation); a neutral and detached hearing body or officer; and a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking the probation. Morgan was accorded the minimum due process requirements to which he was entitled at his revocation hearing. He was given notice that he violated his probation and the reasons thereof. A revocation hearing was held at which Morgan represented himself. It was at this time that the evidence against him was presented, and he was given an opportunity to be heard. Morgan was also given the opportunity to cross-examine the State’s witnesses and call witnesses of his own. The hearing was presided over by a detached and neutral judge. Further, after hearing the evidence, the trial judge issued an order revoking Morgan’s probation and outlining the reasons and authority supporting his decision. Morgan argues that he should not have been held to have violated his probation because he was never actually convicted of forgery. However, Morgan is wrong in his assertion that the trial court was required to sustain a conviction of the second crime in order to revoke his probation. It is not necessary that a defendant be convicted of crimes charged to suffer revocation of his probation. Issue 2: Evidentiary hearing Morgan argues that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing before the trial court denied his post-conviction relief motion. If it plainly appears from the face of the motion, any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to any relief, the judge may make an order for its dismissal and cause the prisoner to be notified. Here, the trial court's dismissal is consistent with the evidence and testimony presented in the record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
