Hollingsworth v. State
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-01044-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 07-19-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: VACATED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Removal from ISP - Jurisdiction - Reclassification decision - Section 47-5-801 Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Roberts, J., concurs in part without separate written opinion Concurs in Result Only: Irving, P.J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-03-2010 Appealed from: Tishomingo County Circuit Court Judge: Jim S. Pounds Disposition: MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED Case Number: CR07-099 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Johnny Hollingsworth |
PRO SE |
||
| 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: | Post-conviction relief - Removal from ISP - Jurisdiction - Reclassification decision - Section 47-5-801 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Hollingsworth entered a guilty plea to the charge of manufacture of marijuana and received a twenty-year suspended sentence. The circuit judge placed him on probation for five years, provided that Hollingsworth complied with all the conditions listed in his sentencing order, including, but not limited to, not possessing or using alcohol or drugs and not violating any laws of this State or the United States. In 2009, the State filed a petition to revoke probation and impose a suspended sentence, alleging that Hollingsworth violated his probation after he was arrested and charged with DUI, Careless Driving, and Driving While License Suspended. Hollingsworth admitted that he was indeed arrested on those charges. The circuit court revoked his probation and placed him in the intensive supervision/house arrest program for twelve months. The circuit court further ordered that upon successful completion of the program, Hollingsworth be placed on post-release supervision for a period of five years. The order also indicated that if Hollingsworth did not successfully complete the program, he would automatically be placed in whatever facility the MDOC deemed appropriate to serve the twenty-year sentence. A rules-violation report prepared by the MDOC indicated that the day after Hollingsworth’s revocation hearing, the Tishomingo County Sheriff’s Department received a phone call that Hollingsworth was intoxicated and had crashed his car into his front yard. Deputies arrived on the scene and arrested Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth’s house-arrest status was subsequently revoked, and he was placed him in the custody of the MDOC, where he began serving the twenty-year suspended sentence. Hollingsworth filed a motion for judicial review which the court denied. Hollingsworth appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The statutes governing the ISP provide that an offender in the ISP is under the full and complete jurisdiction of the MDOC and is subject to removal from the program by the classification hearing officer. Therefore, the authority to reclassify an inmate from house arrest and to place her in the general prison population is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the MDOC and outside the authority of the original sentencing judge. A complaint about removal from ISP is not properly brought in a motion for post-conviction relief; instead, a prisoner may have an adverse reclassification decision reviewed pursuant to the Administrative Remedy Program promulgated by the MDOC pursuant to section 47-5-801. The record shows that in response to Hollingsworth’s petition to show cause, in which he requested reinstatement to the ISP, the circuit court continued the matter for ninety days to allow Hollingsworth to exhaust his remedies under the ARP. No ARP rulings appear in the record, and nothing in the record reflects whether Hollingsworth’s pursuit of a remedy through the ARP process was ultimately successful. Thus, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider his claims. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
