CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN A/K/A CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY DARDEN A/K/A CHRISTOPHER DARDEN A/K/A CHRIS DARDEN APPELLANT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
OF JUDGMENT: 07/14/2016
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
LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND FAIR, JJ.
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.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (¶10)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2001). Indeed, this Court has held that
"a post-conviction relief pleading ...