IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 97-CP-00805-SCT

ALBERT QUINCY WILSON

v.

STEVE WILSON PUCKETT, RAYMOND ROBERTS,

AND BARBARA BAILEY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/04/97

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BETTY W. SANDERS

COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PRO SE

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JAMES M. NORRIS

JANE L. MAPP

DISTRICT ATTORNEY: FRANK CARLTON

NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST CONVICTION RELIEF

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 9/10/98

MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

MANDATE ISSUED: 10/1/98

BEFORE SULLIVAN, P.J., McRAE AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On December 30, 1987, Albert Quincy Wilson, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to

twenty (20) years in the custody of Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Ten years of the

sentence were mandatory and ten were suspended. On July 8, 1993, while Wilson was still in

custody, he was convicted of the crime of possession of altered money orders. He was sentenced to

fifteen (15) years with ten (10) years suspended and five (5) years to serve. This sentence was to be

served consecutively to his armed robbery sentence.

¶2. Wilson is an inmate, legally incarcerated within the MDOC. On June 17, 1996, he filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Circuit Court of Sunflower County, Mississippi. Wilson named as

defendants, Steve Puckett, Raymond Roberts, and Barbara Bailey. At the time the petition was filed,

Steve Puckett was employed as the Commissioner of the MDOC, and Raymond Roberts was

superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary where Wilson was housed. Barbara Bailey is, and

was, a records officer for MDOC.
¶3. In his petition, Wilson sought to have his time sheet re-computed in order that he could be given

earned time on the mandatory portion of his armed robbery conviction, so that it could be applied to

the time he is to serve on his second consecutive sentence. In its Opinion and Final Judgment, the

circuit court denied Wilson's petition, stating:

Wilson contends that he is entitled to receive earned time while serving the mandatory ten (10)

year sentence for armed robbery. At the crux of his contention is the applicability of Miss. Code

Ann. Section 47-5-139(1)(e), which provides that an inmate shall not be eligible for an "earned

time allowance" if the inmate "has not served the mandatory time required for parole eligibility."

Section 47-5-139(1)(e) became effective May 14, 1992. The sentence to which Wilson seeks to

have earned time applied was rendered on July 8, 1993. Therefore, Wilson is not eligible to

receive any earned time allowance until he has completed the mandatory portion of his

sentence. See Williams v. Puckett, 624 So. 2d 496 (Miss. 1993).

¶4. It is from this decision and judgment that Wilson now appeals, pro se, to this Court, raising the

following issue:

WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S CLAIM

THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE EARNED TIME ALLOWANCE ON THE

MANDATORY PORTION OF HIS ARMED ROBBERY CONVICTION TO BE

APPLIED TO A SUBSEQUENT, CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE AND CONVICTION?

LEGAL ANALYSIS

¶5. Wilson contends that he is entitled to accumulate earned time while serving the mandatory

portion of his armed robbery conviction that he then can apply to the time he is required to serve on a

subsequent consecutive sentence. The appellant further argues that his armed robbery conviction

occurred in 1987 when the practice in effect at that time allowed earned time on the entire sentence

of two or more convictions, regardless of mandatory time. Wilson maintains that such a practice

should be applied, and to support his argument, he cites to and attaches several circuit court

opinions. As the appellee aptly states, "[r]egardless of the fact that these cases are improperly cited

and have no precedential value before this court, they are not on point in the case at bar."

¶6. The circuit court cases cited by Wilson do involve the computation of conditional discharge or

parole eligibility dates on two or more convictions when at least one of the convictions involves

mandatory time. In each of the cases, however, all the convictions occurred and the time sheet

computations were done prior to May 14, 1992, when Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-139(1)(e) was

passed.

¶7. Miss. Code Ann. 47-5-139(1)(e) provides that an inmate shall not be eligible for an earned time

allowance if the inmate has not served the mandatory time required for parole eligibility for

conviction of robbery or attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. Williams v. Puckett, 624 So. 2d

496 (Miss. 1993), a case where this Court interpreted the statute in question, is directly on point. As

in the case at bar, the central issue in Williams was the following question: whether a prisoner may

earn, but not use, good time during service of a mandatory portion of his period of confinement and
use that good time earned upon expiration of the mandatory portion of a sentence? Id. at 498. This

Court clearly answered the question, providing that Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-139(1)(e) denied accrual

of "earned time" allowance during service of any mandatory time without parole eligibility applied to

the defendant even though the statute was not adopted until after the defendant's sentencing. The

Court's reasoning was straightforward, "[t]he provision in question was adopted in 1992. It appears

to be, however, a mere codification of the prevailing administrative construction and practice

approved by this Court." Id. at 499. See also Milam v. State, 578 So. 2d 272 (Miss. 1991); Cooper

v. State, 439 So. 2d 1277 (Miss. 1983).

¶8. Although the Court in Williams mentions several cases as the basis for "prevailing administrative

construction," one case is directly on point with the case sub judice. In Milam v. State, the defendant

pleaded guilty to separate charges of armed robbery and manslaughter. The circuit court sentenced

Milam to consecutive terms of ten years for armed robbery and fifteen years for manslaughter. Milam

contended that his parole eligibility date was in error since it did not allow him credit for "good time"

he had accrued during the years he had been incarcerated on his ten-year armed robbery sentence. Id.

at 273. This Court stated:

It goes without saying that, when a person is by express order providing therefor sentenced to

serve consecutive terms, imprisonment on the second, or each subsequent conviction, shall

commence on the completion of the service of the term for the preceding conviction.

Id. at 274. The Court held that Milam would have to serve the full ten years on the armed robbery

sentence and then one fourth of the fifteen year manslaughter sentence to become eligible for parole.

Id.

¶9. In the case sub judice, Wilson's armed robbery conviction, involving a mandatory ten (10) year

sentence. The first time Wilson's time sheet was computed after he received this second conviction it

was done following the law as set out in Williams. Wilson was not eligible to earn time during his

mandatory sentence and then apply it to his subsequent, consecutive sentence if he had accumulated

any earned time. However, such an argument by Wilson is moot since he received no earned time on

his armed robbery, and consequently there is none to apply to his other sentence.

¶10. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-139(1)(e) and Williams were correctly applied when calculating

Wilson's release dates. We hold that the lower court was not in error, and its opinion and judgment

dismissing Wilson's petition is affirmed.

CONCLUSION

¶11. Based on the facts of the case and a close reading of Williams and Miss. Code Ann. § 47-5-

139(1)(e), the trial court did not commit reversible error, and its order of dismissal is affirmed.

¶12. DENIAL OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF AFFIRMED.

PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, McRAE, ROBERTS, MILLS

AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR.