King v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-CP-01640-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-15-2006 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Probation revocation hearing - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: CIVIL - POST- CONVICTION RELIEF |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-30-2005 Appealed from: Pearl River County Circuit Court Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2005-0241-PC |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Brandon Benard King, a/k/a Brandon Bernard King, a/k/a Brandon Renard King |
BRANDON BERNARD KING (PRO SE) |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOHN R. HENRY |
|
|
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 - Probation revocation hearing - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | Brandon King pled guilty to robbery and was sentenced to complete a five year period of probation incident to non-adjudication subject to certain conditions. When King was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, he was alleged to have violated the terms of his non-adjudicated probation. The court found King guilty of robbery and sentenced King to fifteen years imprisonment but retained jurisdiction for up to one year, and placed King in the Regimented Inmate Discipline program. The court also directed King to complete a three month drug and alcohol treatment program after he completed the Regimented Inmate Discipline program. As part of an agreement with defense counsel, the State announced that it would not pursue the possession of controlled substances charge. After King completed the Regimented Inmate Discipline program and the required three month drug and alcohol treatment program, the court suspended King’s fifteen years robbery sentence, and ordered that King be placed on probation for five years, again subject to certain conditions. Slightly over four months after being released from custody, King was arrested for sale of a controlled substance. The court remanded King to the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections to serve his fifteen year sentence. King filed a document titled “Motion for Clarification of Sentence Order ‘Only.’” The court dismissed King’s motion for clarification. King filed a “Motion for New Trial: Amendment of Judgment Pursuant to MRCP 59(a)(c) & (e)” requesting that the court set aside the revocation of his probation and reinstate his probation. The court denied the motion, and King appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | King argues that the court erred when it revoked his probation in his absence. Minimum due process requirements applicable to probation revocation hearings include written notice of the claimed violations of probation; disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing such confrontations); a neutral and detached hearing body or officer; and a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking the probation. Although King waived his right to a preliminary revocation hearing, King did not waive his right to be present at a formal probation revocation hearing. That King waived his right to the administrative hearing had no bearing on his right to be present at the final revocation hearing. Likewise, King’s waiver of notice of the preliminary hearing had no bearing on his right to be present at the final revocation hearing. The record does not contain a transcript of King’s probation revocation hearing and thus, there is no way to say whether King was or was not present when the circuit court revoked King’s probation. An evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve that question. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
