Agent v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CP-00111-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Revocation of post-release supervision - Due process - Ineffective assistance by probation officer - Sentence - Section 47-7-37 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-15-2008 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Prentiss Harrell Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2008-0843 H (PC) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | YANCE AGENT |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: BILLY L. GORE | ||
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 - Revocation of post-release supervision - Due process - Ineffective assistance by probation officer - Sentence - Section 47-7-37 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Yance Agent pled guilty to statutory rape and was sentenced to fifteen years, with two hundred and forty-two days to be served in custody and the remaining fourteen years and one hundred twenty-two days to be served under post-release supervision. One of the terms of Agent’s PRS was that he was not to possess or consume any alcoholic beverages or mood-altering drugs. Further, as an additional requirement of his PRS, Agent successfully completed the Alcohol/Chemical Treatment Series. After Agent tested positive for drugs, a revocation hearing was held at which Agent confessed that the drug test results were accurate and that he did violate the terms of his PRS. The circuit court judge revoked Agent’s PRS and remanded him to the MDOC to serve the remainder of his entire sentence. Agent filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process Agent argues that he was denied due process as he was not given adequate notice of his revocation hearing, which would have allowed him to bring witnesses or evidence showing mitigating circumstances. The minimum due-process requirements for a probation-revocation hearing are: 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. Here, there is no indication that the minimum requirements for a revocation hearing were not met. A revocation hearing was held where the charges were read to Agent and he was given an opportunity to respond to the charges. Although Agent claims that he could have produced witnesses which would have attested to the fact that he attempted to get help for his drug addiction, the fact remains that he failed to do so. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance by probation officer Agent argues that the probation officer failed to advocate his cause effectively at his hearing. A probation officer does not hold the same position as legal counsel with respect to a defendant. Consequently, a claim of ineffective assistance simply would not be applicable to a defendant’s probation officer. Agent also argues that the court was duty bound to appoint him counsel for his revocation hearing, or at a minimum, advise him of his right to be represented by counsel. The general presumption is that counsel should only be provided in revocation cases that are complex or otherwise difficult to develop. Agent admitted to the court that he had violated the terms of his PRS. As such, the issues presented at Agent’s revocation hearing were neither difficult nor complex. Issue 3: Sentence Agent argues that the circuit court had the discretion not to revoke his probation, and that it was unjust to sentence him to such a lengthy term of imprisonment rather than a lesser punishment. Pursuant to section 47-7-37, a judge is vested with the discretion to revoke and reinstate a defendant’s entire suspended sentence. Although Agent is correct that the circuit court judge had the discretion to impose a lesser sentence, the judge also has the authority to reinstate the entire sentence. Agent admitted that he had twice violated a specific term of his PRS, giving the circuit court judge the discretion to revoke and impose any portion or all of his suspended sentence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
