Putnam v. Epps
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00708-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CP-00708-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-14-2011 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Administrative review procedure - Venue - Section 99-39-7 - Section 47-5-807 - Section 11-11-3(a) - M.R.C.P. 82(d) Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Venue Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-26-2010 Appealed from: Yazoo County Circuit Court Judge: Jannie M. Lewis Disposition: The circuit court dismissed Putnam's complaint upon a finding that venue was improper in Yazoo County. Case Number: 2007-CI 43 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | James Franklin Putnam |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Christopher B. Epps | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: R. STEWART SMITH, JR. |
|
|
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 review procedure - Venue - Section 99-39-7 - Section 47-5-807 - Section 11-11-3(a) - M.R.C.P. 82(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Putnam pled guilty to one count of armed robbery in 1997. The circuit court sentenced Putnam to twenty years, to run concurrently with a federal sentence. Putnam currently is incarcerated in Yazoo County. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief arguing he is entitled to earned time. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Yazoo County Circuit Court’s dismissal of the PCR because its subject matter was cognizable under the administrative-review procedure. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Putnam filed a complaint in the circuit court pursuant to section 47-5-807, challenging the MDOC’s computation of his earned-time allowance on grounds including equal protection. The circuit court dismissed Putnam’s complaint upon a finding that venue was improper in Yazoo County. Putnam appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The State argues that Putnam’s complaint was a motion for post-conviction relief and, because it was not filed in the county of conviction as required by section 99-39-7, the circuit court properly dismissed it. The State’s argument is without merit because Putnam’s filing is not a motion for post-conviction relief. Rather, it is a complaint brought pursuant to the statutes governing the administrative- review procedures. Section 47-5-807 provides that any offender who is aggrieved by an adverse decision rendered pursuant to any administrative review procedure under sections 47-5-801 through 47-5-807 may, within thirty days after receipt of the agency’s final decision, seek judicial review of the decision. In his complaint, Putnam argues that the MDOC erroneously has denied him the right to serve part of his twenty-year sentence on earned-release supervision. He does not argue that the trial court erred, in 1997, by imposing the twenty-year sentence or that the sentence was obtained in violation of his constitutional or statutory rights. Therefore, Putnam properly sought relief for the alleged miscalculation of his earned time by first exhausting his administrative remedies with the MDOC and then filing a complaint within thirty days of the final decision of that agency. The circuit court dismissed Putnam’s complaint upon a finding that venue was improper in Yazoo County. The statutes governing the administrative-review procedure do not contain a venue provision. Venue in civil cases is governed by section 11-11-3. Section 11-11-3(a) provides that venue is proper in the county where a defendant resides or in the county where the act or omission occurred. Putnam’s complaint names a single defendant, Christopher Epps, based on actions taken in his capacity as the commissioner of the MDOC. The offices of the commissioner of the MDOC are located in the City of Jackson, which is situated in the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Putnam makes no argument that a “substantial alleged act or omission”or a “substantial event that caused the injury occurred” in Yazoo County. Therefore, venue is proper in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, not in Yazoo County. Pursuant to M.R.C.P. 82(d), the case is reversed and remanded for the Circuit Court of Yazoo County to transfer this case to the First Judicial District of Hinds County. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
