Mackey v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-01785-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CP-01785-COA ; 2007-CP-01785-COA ; 2007-CT-01785-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-07-2010 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Banishment Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Lamar and Chandler, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlson, P.J., Specially Concurs with Separate Written Opinion Joined by Waller, C.J., Dickinson, Lamar and Chandler, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pierce, J. Dissenting Author : Randolph, J., with Separate Written Opinion. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, P.J., With Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Kitchens, J.; Randolph, J., Joins In Part. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-20-2007 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Helfrich Disposition: This is a banishment case in which the Circuit Court of Forrest County issued a suspended sentenced of thirty years and then ordered the defendant not to come within one hundred miles of Hattiesburg. Upon learning the defendant had violated the banishment order, the trial court revoked the suspension of the sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. District Attorney: Jon Mark Weathers Case Number: CI07-0123 |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses and renders a previous judgment by the Court of Appeals and the trial court. See the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO54670.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Ronnie Mackey a/k/a Ronald Fantae Mackey |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: DEIRDRE McCRORY |
|
|
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 - Banishment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ronnie Mackey pled guilty to one count of transfer of a controlled substance. The court sentenced him to a thirty-year prison term, but suspended the entire sentence. The court imposed several requirements during the period of the suspended sentence, one of which was that, within forty-eight hours, Mackey was to leave Hattiesburg and, for thirty years, remain outside a circle with a radius of one hundred miles, centered on Hattiesburg. Mackey (involuntarily) remained in jail for approximately fifty hours after sentencing. Thus, when he was released from jail, he was already in violation of the banishment order. He was still in town six days later when he was spotted by a police officer and arrested for violating the condition of his suspended sentence. The trial court revoked the suspension and imposed the full thirty-year sentence. Mackey filed a motion for post-conviction relief which the court dismissed. Mackey appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Although banishment has not been specifically forbidden by the Court, prior decisions clearly establish that arbitrary banishment will not be upheld; that is, justification for the banishment must clearly be established in the record. Banishment from a large geographical area, especially outside of the State, struggles to serve any rehabilitative purpose, and implicates serious public policy questions against the dumping of convicts on another jurisdiction. One problem with banishment orders is that they preclude supervision. Compelling reasons must be offered to justify allowing a defendant convicted of a serious criminal offense to leave the jurisdiction unsupervised, as opposed to incarceration or keeping the defendant in the jurisdiction of the court, with supervision. A trial judge’s reasons for ordering banishment — regardless of the size of the geographic area — must be articulated and supported in the record by a factual basis. In this case, the only statement in the prosecutor’s presentation to the court when asked if she had a sentencing recommendation which remotely could have been viewed by the trial judge as justification for banishment was the representation that Mackey had one relative in Forrest County from whom he was estranged. This single, benign reference to an “estranged relative” is a woefully inadequate factual basis for banishment. In addition, the trial court’s order includes no factual findings regarding banishment. Thus, the court’s order is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
