Amerson v. Epps
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00685-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-24-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Request for administrative remedy - Sentence calculation - Section 99-19-23 - Right to confrontation - Jurisdiction - Second hearing Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Roberts and Russell, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-13-2010 Appealed from: Sunflower County Circuit Court Judge: Betty W. Sanders Disposition: Affirmed the Mississippi Department of Corrections' Decision that Amerson is not Entitled to Jail-Time Credits Case Number: 2010-0007-M |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Thomas J. Amerson |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Christopher B. Epps and State of Mississippi | 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: | Request for administrative remedy - Sentence calculation - Section 99-19-23 - Right to confrontation - Jurisdiction - Second hearing |
| Summary of the Facts: | Since September 7, 1990, Thomas Amerson has been continuously incarcerated in jail and/or prison, as he committed the crimes of arson, damaging public property, inciting a riot, and simple assault while incarcerated. Amerson filed a request for administrative remedy with the MDOC through its Administrative Remedy Program, arguing that the MDOC improperly calculated his jail-time credits and requested additional credits be applied toward his arson and assault sentences. The MDOC denied his request, concluding that Amerson had received all of the jail-time credits to which he was entitled. Having exhausted his administrative appeals within the MDOC’s ARP, Amerson appealed to circuit court which affirmed the ARP’s denial of his grievance and ruled that the MDOC had correctly calculated Amerson’s sentences. Amerson appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sentence calculation Amerson argues that the trial court erred in finding that the MDOC had correctly computed his jail-time credits. Specifically, Amerson seeks 205 days of jail-time credits for the time that he spent incarcerated while awaiting trial on his arson charge and 168 days for the time spent incarcerated while awaiting trial on his assault charge. Section 99-19-23 speaks to the process employed when calculating and applying jail-time credits toward a prisoner’s incarceration time. A prisoner actually serving time for another conviction is not, within the meaning of section 99-19-23, being held to await trial. As noted by the trial judge, Amerson was already incarcerated awaiting trial on his concealed-weapon charge. Also, after Amerson was later convicted of the concealed-weapon charge, and serving the time imposed for the offense, he was then convicted and sentenced for his subsequent offenses of arson, damaging public property, inciting a riot, and simple assault. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to affirm the MDOC’s calculation of Amerson’s sentences was supported by substantial evidence. Amerson next argues that the trial court erred in finding that he sought to receive jail-time credits toward all five of his sentences, rather than only his arson and assault sentences, and that the trial court erred in finding that he had conceded the fact that all of his jail-time credits were properly calculated. However, the record fails to support Amerson’s contentions. Issue 2: Right to confrontation Amerson argues that the trial court deprived him of his due-process rights by not allowing him to confront Epps in open court. No violation of Amerson’s Sixth Amendment rights occurred. As this case constitutes a civil matter, and because no right of confrontation exists in civil cases, this claim is without merit. Issue 3: Second hearing Amerson argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to require him to appear in court for a “second hearing” after he had filed his notice of appeal. However, the record shows that the trial court only held the hearing, which occurred after Amerson had filed his notice of appeal and application for in forma pauperis status, to determine whether to grant Amerson authority to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. While Amerson argues that the merits of his appeal were re-evaluated at his second hearing, the record fails to support this proposition. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
