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.

Brown v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

March 21, 2017

DAVARRIUS BROWN A/K/A DEVARRIUS DEONTAY GARRETT A/K/A DEVARRIUS GARRETT A/K/A DEVARRIUS GARRETT BROWN A/K/A DEVARIOUS DEONTAY BROWN A/K/A DEVARIOUS GARRETT BROWN A/K/A DEVARIOUS DONTAY BROWN A/K/A DEVARRIOUS GARRETT A/K/A DEVARRIUS D. GARRETT A/K/A DEVARRIUS DEONTAY GARRETT BROWN A/K/A DEVARIUS GARRETT BROWN A/K/A DEVARIUS DEONTAY BROWN APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          Date of Judgment: 12/04/2015

         COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III TRIAL JUDGE.

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAVARRIUS BROWN (PRO SE).

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN JASON L. DAVIS ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR.

         EN BANC.

          GREENLEE, J.

         ¶1. Davarrius Brown appeals pro se to this Court arguing that the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) incorrectly computed the date of his parole eligibility following sentencing for his fifth and sixth felony convictions. Finding no error, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

         ¶2. In 2012, Brown pleaded guilty to one count of felony shoplifting, and had a previous nonadjudication for one count of felony shoplifting set aside. In 2013, Brown pleaded guilty to yet another count of felony shoplifting. For each of these three convictions, Brown was sentenced to ten years, with five years to serve followed by five years of post-release supervision. All together, the time to serve amounted to three consecutive five-year terms.[1]Brown was enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) and began serving these sentences under "house arrest."

         ¶3. In May 2014, while still under the ISP and wearing an ankle monitor, Brown was arrested for felony shoplifting from a department store. Later that day, while still being processed in booking, Brown escaped police custody due to a faulty jail-cell door. The authorities promptly tracked him through his ankle monitor, and he was apprehended. Brown pleaded guilty to felony shoplifting and escape, and was sentenced in March 2015 to a total of fifteen years (ten for shoplifting and five for escape, with the sentences to run consecutively to each other). The 2015 sentencing order is silent as to how the new sentences should run in relation to the 2012 and 2013 sentences.

         ¶4. Brown was not sentenced as a habitual offender. MDOC gave him a parole-eligibility date of January 21, 2020. This was calculated by first measuring twenty-five percent of his 2012 and 2013 consecutive sentences (3.75 years) followed consecutively by twenty-five percent of his 2015 sentences (an additional 3.75 years). Brown filed a motion in the Circuit Court of Madison County, arguing that the 2012 and 2015 sentences should be treated as concurrent for purposes of calculating parole eligibility. Treating Brown's motion as a motion for post-conviction relief, the circuit court summarily dismissed it. Brown appeals.

         DISCUSSION

         ¶5. An inmate may contest the computation of a parole-eligibility date as an original action in circuit court without first exhausting administrative remedies. Keys v. State, 67 So.3d 758, 760 (¶9) (Miss. 2011); Ducksworth v. State, 103 So.3d 762, 765-66 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012); Lattimore v. Sparkman, 858 So.2d 936, 938 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). The State failed to identify or distinguish this line of controlling cases in its brief, pointing instead to the requirement in Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-803 (Rev. 2015) that "no state court shall entertain an offender's grievance or complaint which falls under the purview of the administrative review procedure unless and until such offender shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in such procedure." But as this Court discussed in detail in Lattimore, parole eligibility does not clearly fall under the purview of the administrative-review procedure. Lattimore, 858 So.2d at 938 (¶7). Therefore we follow the rule that inmates may-but are not required to-use the administrative-review procedure as a way of challenging parole eligibility. Id.

         ¶6. Brown's argument that he has a liberty interest in parole is without merit. Mississippi law is settled that criminal offenders have "no constitutionally recognized liberty interest in parole." Vice v. State, 679 So.2d 205, 208 (Miss. 1996). By statute, the Mississippi Parole Board has the exclusive responsibility and discretion ...


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.