Lee v. Kelly
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01782-COA Linked Case(s): 2008-CP-01782-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-16-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Administrative remedies - Jurisdiction - Section 47-5-807 - Section 47-5-803(2) - Earned time credit - Section 99-19-81 - Concurrent sentences Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Roberts, J., without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER; Dismissal |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-09-2008 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: DISMISSED PETITION Case Number: 2008-102-KR2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | GARY LEE |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | LAWRENCE KELLY | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: | Administrative remedies - Jurisdiction - Section 47-5-807 - Section 47-5-803(2) - Earned time credit - Section 99-19-81 - Concurrent sentences |
| Summary of the Facts: | Gary Lee filed a petition with the circuit court against Superintendent Lawrence Kelly, arguing that the Mississippi Department of Corrections improperly computed his discharge date and that he should be released from prison. The trial court dismissed Lee’s petition. Lee appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction The record shows that Lee initiated a grievance through the ARP. Section 47-5-807 clearly states that the offender may appeal the final decision rendered by the ARP. There is clearly no evidence in the record showing that Lee exhausted his administrative remedies through the ARP. In accordance with section 47-5-803(2), the trial court should have stayed the proceedings for ninety days to allow time for Lee to exhaust his administrative remedies. Despite this, a reversal of this case would be futile. MDOC clearly provided the trial court with sufficient information to determine whether Lee’s sentence had been properly computed. Issue 2: Earned time credit Lee argues that he is entitled to earned-time credit. Lee was sentenced to five years for accessory after the fact of armed robbery in February 1982, and that sentence has since expired. In December 1982, Lee was convicted for the aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer. Lee was then sentenced under the habitual-criminal statute. Earned time is in essence a reduction in sentence. Section 99-19-81 clearly states that a habitual offender’s sentence shall not be reduced. Thus, Lee was required to serve the maximum term of imprisonment for his crime. Issue 3: Concurrent sentences Lee argues that his five-year sentence as an accessory after the fact of armed robbery and his thirty-year sentence for the aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer were to run concurrently. The State does not raise an objection to this argument on appeal, and the MDOC conceded this point below. Lee’s time sheet reflects that his time was computed accordingly. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
