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.

Darden v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

September 12, 2017

CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN A/K/A CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DARDEN A/K/A CHRISTOPHER DARDEN A/K/A CHRIS DARDEN APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/14/2016

         GREENE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. DALE HARKEY, TRIAL JUDGE

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SCOTT STUART

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ.

          ISHEE, J.

         ¶1. In 2006, Christopher Darden was found guilty of robbery by displaying a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to a twelve-year term, with seven years to serve, and five years of postrelease supervision (PRS). In 2015, the circuit court found that Darden had violated four conditions of his PRS. And so, the circuit court revoked his PRS and ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Darden then challenged this revocation-filing a motion to clarify the revocation of his PRS. The circuit court denied Darden's motion. Darden now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. In 2006, Darden was found guilty of robbery by displaying a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to a twelve-year term, with seven years to serve, and five years of PRS.

         ¶3. In 2015, the circuit court found that Darden had violated four conditions of his PRS. The circuit court then revoked Darden's PRS and ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence in the custody of the MDOC. Darden then filed a motion to clarify the revocation of his PRS. In the motion, Darden made three claims. First, Darden claimed that he had served two years of the five years of PRS, and so, instead of serving five years, he should have been given credit for the two years he served on PRS-leaving the remainder of his sentence as three years, not five. Darden refers to this time as "street time." Second, Darden asserted that instead of revoking the remainder of his sentence, the circuit court should have sent him to a technical-violation center for a maximum of ninety days. And third, Darden claimed that he was entitled to have the MDOC set a parole-eligibility date-and that the MDOC had failed to give him such a date.

         ¶4. In July 2016, the circuit court entered an order denying Darden's motion. In denying the motion, the circuit court addressed each of Darden's assertions. First, the circuit court found that Darden's "street time" claim was a matter that should have been addressed to MDOC authorities in the form of an administrative request. Second, as to Darden's claim that he should have been sent to a technical-violation center, the circuit court found that because Darden had committed three technical violations, it had the discretion to impose the balance of the original sentence. And third, as to parole eligibility, the circuit court found that because Darden was serving time for armed robbery, he was not eligible for parole. Darden now appeals to this Court.

         DISCUSSION

         I. The circuit court did not err in finding that Darden was required to first seek an administrative remedy to determine if he was entitled to two years' credit for the time he was on PRS.

         ¶5. Darden's first assertion is that the MDOC failed to give him credit for the two years he served on PRS. Under Mississippi law, an inmate must first seek administrative relief when seeking resolution of the amount of time served. Murphy v. State, 800 So.2d 525, 527 (ΒΆ10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Indeed, this Court has held that "a post-conviction relief pleading ...


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.