I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CP - 0 0 9 1 0 - CO A

DE RR I CK RA ND L E A/K/A D E RR I CK CO X AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 11/2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: DER RI CK RA ND LE ( PRO SE) AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY: S COTT S TUART NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : DEN I ED M OTI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A PPE A L D I SM I SSE D - 11/ 18/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , F A I R A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . R a n d le a p p e a ls th e d is m is s a l o f h is p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f ( P C R ) m o tio n b y th e C irc u it C o u rto f H o lm es C o u n ty. R an d le ap p ea ls an drai ses tw o issue s: ( 1 ) w h ethe r th e c ir cu itco u rt
e rre din u sin g th e sa m e fa c ts a t tw o d iffe re n t re v o c a tio n h e a rin g s a n d(2 ) w h e th e r th e c irc u it
courterr ed i n r evoki ng hi s s us pended s ent ence i n a ca s e f orw hi ch he c l ai m s he had not
s t art ed s ervi ng the pos t - r el eas e- s upervi s i on ( PR S) port i on of thats ent ence . A s w i l l be expl ai ned f

urther , w e di s m i s s R andl e’ s appea l as unt i m el y.

### 2 FACTS ¶2. O n February 5, 2008, R andle enter ed pleas o f gui l ty t o bur gl ary of a comm er ci al bui l di ng i n caus e num ber11, 827 and t o r ece i vi ng s t ol en pr operty i n caus e number11, 821. T he ci r cui tcourts ent ence d R andl e t o concurr entt erm s of fi ve years i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( M D O C ) , w i th tw o year s t o s erve and thr ee ye ar s on PRS. ¶3. O n Sept ember 22, 2010, f ol l ow i ng a revocat i on hear i ng, the ci r cui t courtm odi f i ed R andl e’ s pr obat i on i n caus e number s 11, 821 and 11, 827 and or der ed R andl e t o compl et e a re stitu tio n p ro g ra m . R a n d le w a s a lso o rd e re dto p a y c o u rt c o sts , atto rn e y ’s f e e s, a n da ll
m on eys i n arr ears . ¶4. O n O ct ob er 1 , 2 0 1 0 , R and l e enter ed a p l ea of gu i l ty to busi ness burglary in cause
n u mb e r1 0
- 0 0 4 6 . Th e c i r c u i tc o u rts e n t e n c e dRa n d l e t o f i v e y e a r s i n th e c u s t o d y o f M DOC,
w ith six m o n th s to se rv e , cre d it fo r tim e a lre a d y se rv e d , an dth e re a fte r fo u r a n do n e -h a lf y ea rs on P R S . T h e c o u rtalso o rde red R an d le t o p ay resti tuti o n , att o rne y ’s fees, an dco u rt
co sts i n ca u se n u m b er 1 0 -00 4 6 w h il e c o m p let ing th e resti tuti o n pro g ram i n ca u se n u m b ers 11, 821 and 11, 827. ¶ 5 . O n F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 , a t a re v o c a tio n h e a rin g in a ll th re e c a u se n u m b e rs, th e S tate p re se n ted D e w a y n e M o n tg o m e ry , a p a ro le o ffic e r, w h o tes tified th a t R a n d le h a dfa iled to compl y w i th the rul es of the r es t i tut i on pr ogr am b y dis obeyi ng s t af f , bei ng l oud and boi s t er ous , and bei ng char ged w i th di s or der l y conductand publ i c drunkennes s by the Leake C ounty Sher i f

f’ s D epartm enton F ebruary 1, 2011. T he ci r cui tcourtor der ed thatR andl e be

### 3

tr a n s fe rr e dto a n o th e r r e s titu tio n c e n te r. ¶6 . O n M a r c h 22 , 20 11 , the c i r c ui t c ou rt he l d a s e c on d r e vo c a t i on he a r i ng i n al l thr ee c a u se n u m b e rs. T h e S tate p re se n ted A l Jo b e , a p a ro le o ffic e r, w h o tes tified th a t R a n d le beca m e aggr es s i ve t ow ar ds O f f i cerM ont gom ery and Ser geantV an M ayb erry dur i ng the att em p t t o tr an sfer R a n d le to th e n ew resti tuti o n ce n ter. T h e c o u rtrev o k ed R an d le’s probati on i n allthree cause nu m bers. ¶7. O n N ovember29, 2012, R andl e f i l ed hi s P C R m ot i on, w hi ch w as s um m ar i l y deni ed b y th e c irc u it co u rt o n Ja n u a ry 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 . H o w e v e r, R a n d le d idn o t atte m p t to ap p e a l u n til Ju ly 8 , 2 0 1 3 , an dev en then , h e d id n o t app ea l th e circu itco u rt ’s Jan u ary 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 o rde r. In ste a d , as w e e x p lain late r in th is o p in io n , h e ap p e a le d th e c irc u it co u rt’s r e sp o n se to h is p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f m a n d a m u s th a t h e filed w ith th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. A s not ed, the j udgm entf r om w hi ch R andl e att em pted t o app eal w as r ender ed on J anuary 11, 2013 . R atherthan f i l i ng a t i m el y appea l , R andl e f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

ora w r i tof
m andam us w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourton M ay 31, 2013, s eeki ng an or der compel l i ng the ci r cui tcourtt o rul e on hi s PC R m ot i on f i l ed on N ovember29, 2012. A f t er the ci r cui tcourt ’ s r es pons e t o the pet i t i on fora w r i tof mandamus on June 20, 2013, advi s i ng the s upr eme courtthatR andl e’ s PC R m ot i on h ad been deci ded J anuary 11, 2013, the
su p re m e c o u rt d ism iss e dR a n d le’ s p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f m a n d a m u s a s m o o t. ¶9 . A s stated, R an d le fi led th e ins tant ap p ea l on J u ly 8 , 2 0 1 3 . Interes ti n g ly, R an d le’s
n o t i c e o f ap p e a l s t a t e s th a th e i s ap p e a l i n g th e c i r c u i tc o u rt ’ s o r d e ro f J u n e 2 0 , 2 0 1 3 . As

### 4

not ed, on J une 20, 2013, the ci r cui tcourtf i l ed a r es pons e t o R andl e’ s pet i t i on f ora w r i tof
m andamus, notan or der
. T her ef or e, ther e i s notan or deron thatdat e t o appea l f r om . T o the ext entthatR andl e s eeks t o appea l f r om the or derof

the ci r cui tcourtent er ed on J anuary 11, 2013, i ti s obvi ous thathe i s much t oo l at e, a s hi s not i ce of appea l w as f

i l ed w el l beyond the thi rty days perm i tt ed by R ul e 4( a) of the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e. H e has nots oughtan out - of

- t i m e appe al , and one has notbeen gr ant ed. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd that thi s appea l m us tbe di s m i s s ed f orl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. ¶ 1 0 . THI S APP EAL I S DI S M I S S ED FOR LAC K O F J URI S DI CTI ON . ALL CO S TS OF THI S AP P EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO HOLMES COUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.