Ivory v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-00092-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CT-00092-SCT ; 2007-CT-00092-SCT ; 2007-CP-00092-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 12-09-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Removal from house arrest - Intensive supervision program - Section 47-5-1003 Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND CARLTON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): IRVING, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: CHANDLER, J. with separate written opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: KING, C.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-04-2006 Appealed from: MONROE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS - DISMISSED Case Number: CV06-116GM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ANNIE WALTON IVORY |
ANNIE WALTON IVORY (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: W. GLENN WATTS JANE L. MAPP | ||
| Amicus #1: | ||||
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: | Post-conviction relief - Removal from house arrest - Intensive supervision program - Section 47-5-1003 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Annie Ivory filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court treated Ivory’s petition as a motion for post-conviction relief and dismissed it. Ivory appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | : Ivory argues that the circuit court should have adjudicated her claim that her removal from house arrest by the MDOC was arbitrary and capricious. This argument is without merit. The circuit court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction under the post-conviction relief statutes to afford Ivory any relief from the MDOC’s decision to remove her from the ISP. The statutes governing the ISP provide that an offender in the ISP is under the full and complete jurisdiction of the MDOC and is subject to removal from the program by the classification hearing officer. Thus, by statute, the authority to reclassify an inmate from house arrest and to place her in the general prison population is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MDOC and outside the authority of the original sentencing judge. It also appears that Ivory claims she was be placed on post-release supervision after one year, despite her rule violations while in the ISP. Pursuant to section 47-5-1003, a sentencing court may not require an offender to complete the intensive supervision program as a condition of probation or post-release supervision. The circuit court, in its leniency, gave Ivory a chance to avoid her sixteen-year sentence. However, because Ivory failed to abstain from using cocaine during her time in the ISP, the circuit court’s omission of language that would have Ivory return before it for modification of her sentence becomes a nullity. Based on the discretion afforded to sentencing judges, the Court must conclude that the circuit court intended to retain jurisdiction over Ivory and then resentence Ivory by suspending the remaining fifteen years of Ivory’s sixteen-year sentence and placing her on post-release supervision. The circuit court sentenced Ivory to sixteen years in the custody of MDOC with the first year of that sentence to be served in the ISP. The circuit court did not suspend any portion of that sentence. Presumptively, had Ivory completed the ISP, the circuit court would have then resentenced her and suspended the remaining fifteen years of Ivory’s sentence. The circuit court’s sentence is not prohibited by section 47-5-1003(4). Suspension of fifteen years of Ivory’s sentence was contingent upon her completion of the ISP, and successful completion of post-release supervision was conditioned upon obedience to the terms and conditions of post-release supervision spelled out in her court order; none of which required completion of the ISP. The circuit court did make her successful completion of the ISP a prerequisite for his resentencing Ivory to a suspended sentence and post-release supervision. Section 47-5-1003(4) prohibits a trial judge from requiring an offender to complete the ISP as one of the numerous conditions of post-release supervision once an offender reaches post-release supervision status. This distinction is outcome determinative. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
