Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/24/98 DAVID GRAY v. STEVE WILSON PUCKETT

DAVID GRAY, APPELLANT
v.
STEVE WILSON PUCKETT, COMMISSIONER, APPELLEES MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ANN L. LEE, DIRECTOR OF OFFENDER SERVICES, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND RAYMOND ROBERTS, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS



DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/96 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GRAY EVANS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

Before: Thomas, P.j., King, And Payne, JJ.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam:

PER CURIAM AFFIRMANCE MEMORANDUM

JANE LANIER MAPP

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER

TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION STATUS

DISPOSITION AFFIRMED - 2/24/98

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

CERTIORARI FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED:

David Gray, a former death-row inmate, appeals pro se the MDOC's decision to disqualify him for "A" custody. The circuit court dismissed Gray's petition. We affirm.

Gray states that when he appeared before the Classification Committee they showed him a memorandum written by Edward Hargett, which stated that ex-death-row inmates were not to be considered for "A" custody. He opines that the Committee used this as their denial for his "A" classification. He argues that Hargett, who was not a member of the Committee, dictated the rules to the Committee, which by statute, Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-103 (Rev. 1993), the Committee was bound to promulgate. By having used the criteria set forth by the Hargett memorandum and using this as its denial of change in custody, the Committee necessarily adopted the guidelines in the memorandum, even if it did not initially draft the criteria.

Gray contends that Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-103, which requires "that the committee provide the parole board with a copy of the classification assigned to each offender" will diminish his chance for parole. The parole board, when determining whether an inmate should be considered for parole would have all the inmate's information before them at that time. This argument has no merit.

There is a Supreme Court decision that is germane to Gray's situation. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The Court recognized that under some circumstances states may create liberty interests, but "these interests will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Id. at 484 (citations omitted). The test articulated in Sandin precludes us from finding a liberty interest and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.