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.

Britton v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

March 27, 2018

MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON A/K/A M. DESEAN BRITTON A/K/A MEIKA D. BRITTON A/K/A MEIKE BRITTON A/K/A MEIKA BRITTON A/K/A MEIKO DESEAN BRITTON APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

          DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/14/2017

          DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON. GERALD W. CHATHAM SR.

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON (PRO SE)

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD.

          BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.

          LEE, C.J.

         ¶1. In this appeal, we must determine if Meika Britton's postrelease supervision (PRS) was properly revoked. Finding no error, we affirm.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         ¶2. Britton was convicted of child exploitation and sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), followed by ten years of PRS. Upon release from prison, Britton was charged with committing child exploitation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The State moved to revoke Britton's PRS based upon his new crimes and his failure to pay court-ordered fees. After a revocation hearing conducted over two days on April 18, 2016, and May 13, 2016, the trial court revoked Britton's PRS and ordered him to serve ten years in the custody of the MDOC.

         ¶3. Britton subsequently filed a motion to "reinstate" his PRS.[1] Treating this as a motion for postconviction relief (PCR), the trial court found Britton's arguments to be without merit and denied his motion. Britton now appeals, asserting the following issues: (1) minimum due-process requirements were not met at his revocation hearing; (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) insufficient evidence was presented to support the revocation; and (4) his cell phone was searched without a valid search warrant.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         ¶4. Absent a finding that the "ruling was clearly erroneous[, ]" this Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a PCR motion. Jones v. State, 994 So.2d 829, 830 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Kirksey v. State, 728 So.2d 565, 567 (¶8) (Miss. 1999)). "However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo." Steele v. State, 991 So.2d 176, 177 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Brown v. State, 731 So.2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999)).

         DISCUSSION

         I.Due-Process ...


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.