Rochell v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-CP-01730-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-08-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Denial of parole - Jurisdiction - Constitutionality of statutes - Section 47-7-5(1) - Section 47-7-13 - Preliminary injunction - Section 47-7-17 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-18-2008 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Winston Kidd Disposition: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE Case Number: 251-07-0014-CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Arvin Dale Rochell |
ARVIN D. ROCHELL (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | 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: | Denial of parole - Jurisdiction - Constitutionality of statutes - Section 47-7-5(1) - Section 47-7-13 - Preliminary injunction - Section 47-7-17 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Arvin Rochell filed a complaint against the Mississippi State Parole Board, Governor Haley Barbour, and the Mississippi state legislators, in which he requested the interpretation of parole statutes, claimed that these statutes were unconstitutional, and alleged that the Parole Board arbitrarily denied him parole. The court dismissed his complaint, and he appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction The State argues that the trial court properly dismissed Rochell’s case based on lack of jurisdiction. The law is clear that parole eligibility is a matter of legislative grace, and the grant or denial of parole is entirely at the discretion of the Parole Board. However, the trial court may assert jurisdiction over those claims which raise constitutional issues. Rochell asked the trial court to interpret parole statutes, alleged that the Parole Board violated the statutes, and he claimed that the parole statutes were unconstitutional. Rochell asked the trial court how many members are required to constitute the Parole Board under section 47-7-5(1). At the least, the Court can acknowledge that section 47-7-5(1) provides that the Parole Board shall be composed of five members. Also, the Parole Board was in compliance with section 47-7-13. Rochell’s remaining concerns fail to state a constitutional claim sufficient for the trial court to assert jurisdiction. Issue 2: Preliminary injunction Rochell filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Parole Board during the litigation. In this motion, Rochell argued that the Parole Board violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by arbitrarily denying him parole in retaliation for this lawsuit. The denial of parole will be upheld if there is any conceivable basis which might support the action. The Parole Board denied Rochell parole based on the following: the serious nature of the offense, the number of offenses committed, his police record, community opposition, and insufficient time served. The reasons stated by the Parole Board for denying Rochell parole are areas which the Parole Board has authority to consider under section 47-7-17. Thus, the trial court did not err by denying Rochell’s motion for a preliminary injunction. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
