Morris v. State
Docket Number: | 2009-CP-02034-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-28-2011 Opinion Author: Ishee, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Forfeiture of earned time - Section 47-5-138(2) - Exception to no-fighting rule - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving, P.J., Myers, Barnes and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Roberts, J., concurs in result only with separate written opinion joined by Griffis, P.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-02-2009 Appealed from: Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge: Lamar Pickard Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: 2009-32 |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | Darrell Ray Morris |
PRO SE |
||
Appellee: | 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: | Post-conviction relief - Forfeiture of earned time - Section 47-5-138(2) - Exception to no-fighting rule - Sufficiency of evidence |
Summary of the Facts: | While out of prison on earned-release supervision, Darrell Morris physically fought with his father-in-law, which resulted in his father-in-law being sent to the hospital for medical treatment. Morris was charged with domestic violence aggravated assault, and the Mississippi Department of Corrections scheduled a revocation hearing. Despite evidence presented to support Morris’s claim of self-defense, the MDOC ruled that Morris had violated a condition of his ERS status by fighting with another person, and Morris was sent back to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence. A grand jury later “no billed” an indictment for Morris, and he was never prosecuted on the assault charge. Morris challenged the revocation of his ERS. His motion for post-conviction relief was denied, and Morris appeals |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Morris argues that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion because he was never indicted for domestic violence aggravated assault, which was the sole basis for the revocation of his ERS. He admits that he did fight with his father-in-law, but claims that he only struck him in self-defense. Since defending oneself is an exception to the no-fighting rule, Morris maintains that he did not violate an ERS rule. Under section 47-5-138(2), an inmate may forfeit all or part of his earned-time allowance for a serious violation of rules. If the ERS is revoked, the inmate shall serve the remainder of the sentence and the time the inmate was on earned-release supervision, shall not be applied to and shall not reduce his sentence. The MDOC lists a number of violations that could cause an offender to lose his ERS status. Fighting with another person, except in self-defense, is one such violation. Assaulting any person is another. Actual proof of a violation of the rules is required before the MDOC may revoke a defendant’s ERS. It is undisputed that Morris fought with his father-in-law. However, Morris provided sufficient evidence at the revocation hearing that he had acted in self-defense. Morris claimed that he only hit his father-in-law after he had thrown a phone at Morris. Morris’s wife told the police on the day of the argument that Morris was the instigator of the argument with her father. She later recanted her statements. It is uncontested that Morris’s wife did not witness the fight. In addition, an eyewitness account by Morris’s mother corroborated Morris’s claim. The State did not present evidence, other than the arrest record, to prove that Morris had violated an ERS rule. The State also did not dispute any evidence presented by Morris that he had acted in self-defense. Thus, it cannot be shown that Morris violated the terms of his ERS. Morris completed his prison sentence before this case could be decided. Accordingly, judgment is rendered to clear Morris’s record of the ERS violation. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court