Tipton v. State
| Docket Number: | 2008-KA-02060-SCT Linked Case(s): 2008-KA-02060-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-24-2010 Opinion Author: Dickinson, J. Holding: Reversed and vacated |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Violation of section 97-11-37 - Employee of contractor providing incarceration services - House arrest - Section 47-5-1003(1) Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Lamar and Kitchens, JJ. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J., Dissents With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Waller, C.J., Randolph and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-30-2007 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Dale Harkey Disposition: The defendant, an employee of a private company that (according to Mississippi Law), provides an alternative to incarceration services was indicted and convicted under a statute that criminalized certain acts committed by an "employee of any contractor providing incarceration services." District Attorney: Anthony N. Lawrence, III Case Number: CR-2004-10,627(3) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Frank Sanders Tipton |
ROSS PARKER SIMONS |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD | ||
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: | Violation of section 97-11-37 - Employee of contractor providing incarceration services - House arrest - Section 47-5-1003(1) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Frank Tipton was convicted for violation of section 97-11-37, which criminalizes certain acts committed by an “employee of any contractor providing incarceration services.” He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tipton argues that he did not fall within any of the categories of persons covered by the statute under which he was indicted. The State argues that Tipton was an “employee of [a] contractor providing incarceration services,” one of the categories in the statute. During its case-in-chief, the State twice called a manager at Court Services during Tipton’s tenure with the company. The manager’s testimony was the only evidence as to the nature of the services provided by Court Programs. He testified that Court Programs, Inc., a private corporation, “ had an agreement or contract with the City of Gulfport to administer probation services for the courts.” He confirmed that Tipton was assigned by the company to monitor a woman who had been placed on house arrest. Such monitoring was accomplished by means of ankle bracelets, telephone voice recognition, and GPS. While monitoring the probation activities of the woman who had been convicted of shoplifting, Tipton offered to pay her monthly fine if she would shower in front of him. Tipton argues that house arrest and “incarceration services” cannot be synonymous because section 47-5-1003(1) defines “intensive supervision,” commonly known as house arrest, as a program that may be used as an alternative to incarceration. Thus far, the Legislature has not seen fit to include a category which applies to persons employed by a private company providing monitoring or probation services. The State was required to prove that Tipton was an “employee of any contractor providing incarceration services,” which he was not. Thus, the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
