DERRICK JACKSON A/K/A DERRICK L. JACKSON A/K/A DERRICK LAMOND JACKSON, APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/17/2013. TRIAL JUDGE: HON.W. ASHLEY HINES. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DISMISSED MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
DERRICK JACKSON, APPELLANT, Pro se.
FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: SCOTT STUART.
BEFORE LEE, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, MAXWELL, FAIR AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR.
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL -POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
¶1. Derrick Jackson appeals the Sunflower County Circuit Court's denial of the requested relief and dismissal of his motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). Jackson claims he is entitled to PCR because the trial court erred by revoking his post-release supervision (PRS) and ordering him to serve his previously suspended eight-year sentence in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Finding no error, we affirm.
¶2. On June 29, 2005, Derrick Jackson was convicted of armed robbery in the Sunflower County Circuit Court . The trial court sentenced Jackson to serve a term of fifteen years in the custody of the MDOC,
with eight years suspended, and five years of PRS.
¶3. In March 2012, Jackson was arrested and charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a felon. On April 2, 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine if Jackson violated the terms of his PRS. The trial court found that Jackson indeed violated the terms and conditions of his PRS by failing to report to his probation officer, failing to submit to a required chemical test, and failing to pay supervision fees. As a result, the trial court revoked Jackson's PRS and ordered Jackson to serve the eight-year sentence that the trial court initially suspended.
¶4. Jackson filed a PCR motion on April 2, 2013, claiming that the trial court erred by revoking his PRS after finding that he committed a crime. Jackson further claimed that at his revocation hearing, the trial court failed to provide him with a chance to explain his failure to report to his field officer or explain his failure to pay his supervision ...