NEAL B. BIGGERS, Senior District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Ira Lee Anderson for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has responded to the petition, and Anderson has replied. The matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as moot.
Facts and Procedural Posture
Ira Lee Anderson pled guilty to aggravated assault in the Panola County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to serve five days in the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") with ten years on post-release supervision ("PRS"), two of which were on a reporting basis and the remaining eight on a non-reporting basis. Anderson was given credit for time served and immediately began serving the PRS portion of his sentence. Within six months, Anderson was before the circuit court for a revocation hearing due to several violations of the terms of his postrelease supervision. S.C.R. Vol. 3, pp. 234-275. Following that hearing, the trial judge entered an order revoking eight years of Anderson's PRS and ordering him to serve the sentence in the custody of MDOC. S.C.R. Vol. 2, pp. 189-190.
Anderson then filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief in the circuit court (S.C.R. Vol. 1, pp. 5-72; 79-98), which was denied by Order filed September 22, 2010. Id. at pp. 111-113. He appealed the circuit court's order denying post-conviction relief to the to the Mississippi Supreme Court, where he raised the following issues for the court's review (as stated by Anderson pro se ):
A. Whether trial court had authority or jurisdiction over appellant?
B. Whether trial court had authority or jurisdiction to hear appellant's post-release supervision revocation hearing?
C. Whether appellant was denied due process at his post-release supervision revocation hearing?
D. Whether trial court's imposition of a sentence at appellant's postrelease supervision revocation hearing exceeding his original sentence constituted double jeopardy?
E. Whether appellant's attorney's performance was ineffective?
F. Whether sentence appellant received at his post-release supervision revocation hearing was illegal?
G. Whether trial court acted in bad faith and with willful misconduct in office?
H. Whether trial court failed to render findings of fact and conclusions of law as ...