IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2013-CP-02023-COA COURTNEY ELKINS A/K/A CORTNEY ELKINS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. RICHARD A. SMITH COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: SUNFLOW ER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: COURTNEY ELKINS (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DISMISSED DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/12/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ. GRIFFIS, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Courtney E lk i n s a

p p e a l s t h e c i r c u i t c o u

r t ’ s d i sm issal of his p etition f or post-conviction collateral r elief

. Af ter this Court’s decision in Elkins v. State , 116 So. 3d 185 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013), the circuit court held an evidentiary hearing a nd u pheld the r evocat i o n o f E l kins’s parole. The court f

ound that “ the State clearly proved that [ it] was m o re likely than not that [ Elkins] com m itted an act in violation of his parole.” W e f

ind no error and af

f irm

. FACTS ¶2. The basic f

acts were sum m arized in E lkins , 116 So. 3d at 186-87 (¶¶2-5).On February 17, 1995, Elkins [ pleaded] guilty in the Sunf l ower C ounty Circuit Court to m

urder and was sentenced to l if e im prisonm ent. Twelve y ears l ater, the Missi s s i ppi Parole Board granted Elkins conditional parole and allowed him to relocate to Chicago, Illinois.
W h ile i n Chicago, Elkins w a s arrested on June 4, 2009, and charged with dom estic battery , af

t er he allegedly pushed down his girlf r iend. Upon learning of his arrest, a prelim inary parole h e a r i ng was held i n Illinois to determ ine whether there was probable cause that Elkins had violated the conditions of his parole. The h earing of f i cer concluded t here was p r o b a b l e cause and recom m e nded a parole-violation hearing be conducted. But t wo day s later, on June 19, 2009, the Chicago Police Departm ent dism issed b y a nolle prosequi (or “nol-prossed”) the dom estic-battery charge against Elkins.
In August 2 009, Elkins was extradited to M ississippi. Elkins waived his right to a prelim inary parole-revocation hearing an d r e quested he be returned to custody f or a f inal parole-revocation hearing bef or e t h e Mississippi Parole Board. Though the Illinois charge had been nol-prossed m onths earlier, and the purported victim provided the B oard an af f idavit in which she recanted the battery allegation, the Board revoked E l kins' s parole on Novem ber 4, 2009. As a result, Elkins was sent back to prison f o r lif e . Elkins f iled a PCR m otion on Ap r i l 2 9 , 2011, alleging his parole had been unlawf u lly revoked. The trial c ourt sum m arily d ism issed Elkins' s PCR m otion without conducting a hearing. ¶3. On appeal, this Court rem anded to t he c i r cuit c o urt f or an evidentiary hearing to determ ine what evidence the Mississippi P a r o l e B o a rd relied upon i n revoking Elkins’s parole. Following our rem and, an evidentiary hearing w as held i n Aug u s t 2 0 1 3

. A t the hearing, testim ony

was given by

Elkins, Nadeja Beasley , and Stephanie Skipper. ¶4. Beasley , Elkins’s f o rm er girlf

riend whom he allegedly battered, t estif ied that Elkins d i d n o t hurt her. She now c laim s that she called the police because s he was angry w i t h Elkins, and she knew that an arrest would cause problem s w i th his p arole. Af ter Elkins’s

2arrest, she wrote an af f i davit explaining what happened on the day of the incident and sought to have the charges against Elkins dropped. ¶5. S k ipper, an em

ploy ee of the Mississippi Parole Board, recorded E lkins’s paro l e hearing. According to Skipper, the Board also considered an earlier arrest in C hicago, where Elkins stabbed his f

a ther with a knif

e . This a r

rest o c curred i n February 2008. Af ter this arrest, Illinois allowed E l kins to continue on parole and ordered him to attend angerma n a g e me nt classes and f am i ly c ounseling. B ased on t he B oard’s r ecord of the hearing, Elkins adm itted to both incidents of dom e s tic viol e n c e , s t abbing his f ather and pushing Beasley

. ¶6. The circuit court then denied Elkins’s PCCR petition af ter f inding “that [ it] was m ore likely than not that [ Elkins] com m itted an act in violation of his parole.” Elkins now appeals.
S TANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7. “A circuit court’s denial of post-conviction relief will not be reversed a bsent a f inding that the court’s decision was clearly erroneous.” M

orris v. State , 66 So. 3d 716, 719 (¶13) (Miss. C t. App. 2011). But “ when issues of law a re raised, the proper s tandard of review is de novo.” Id.
ANALYSIS ¶8. Elkins argues that his parole should be r einstated because the charges stem m ing f rom both incidents of dom estic violence (stabbing his f ather and pushing Beasley ) were dropped.
But even when a parolee i s acquitted in a crim inal proceeding, t his “does not per se preclude

3parole revocation predicated upon f acts and circum s tances giving rise to the crim inal charge.” W

illiams v. Castilla , 585 So. 2d 761, 764 (Miss. 1991). ¶ 9. In revoking parole, “bef ore one released on parole m a y be returned to custody , it m ust be shown that he has violated the term s and conditions of parole.” Moore v. State , 587 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Miss. 1991). “[ A]n arrest alone is not suf f icient t o prove that the def endant

com m itted the act which violated the parole.” Morris , 66 So. 3d at 719-20 ( ¶17). “[ W ]hen there i s an acquittal or dism issal of the underly ing crim inal charges, [ bef o re the a ccused’s parole m ay be revoked], the State m ust of f er a ctual proof that he com m itted an a ct violating the term s and conditi o n s o f his parole, and the m e re f act that he w as a rrested and charged with [ a crim e] m ay hardly suf f ice.” Elkins , 116 So. 3d at 188 (¶13). “The Board m ay not rely on the m ere f

act that the parolee has been charged with a f elony .” W

illiams , 585 So. 2d

at 764. On review, it m

ust b e shown “that reasonable grounds existed f or revocation of

. .

. parole o utside of the

. . . charge i tself .” Moore v. State , 605 So. 2d 794, 7 95 (Miss. 1992). ¶10. Af ter this Court rem anded, an evidentiary h earing was held, and Elkins w as given “an opportunity to prove his claim that his parole h ad been unlawf u lly revoked.” Moore , 587 So. 2d at 1196. “The burden was on [ Elkins] to p rove by a preponderance o f the evidence that he was entitled to reinstatem ent of his parole.” I

d. ¶11. During the evidentiary hearing, t h e S t a t e presented evidence that Elkins had previously been arrested due to a cts of dom e s tic violence. I n 2008, Elkins stabbed his f ather during an argum en t

. The Chicago police arrested him and charged him w ith dom estic

4battery

. Illinois perm itted Elkins to continue on parole upon the condition t hat he attend

anger-m anagem ent classes and m ove to a new address. ¶12. Skipper t estif

ied during the hearing in circuit court that the Board b ecam e aware of Elkins’s f irst charge f

or dom estic violence against h is f ather when Illinois sent Elkins back

to Mississippi. According to Skipper, during t he h earing with the Board, Elkins adm itted to
pu s h i n g B e a sley and hurting her wrist. Elkins w as also asked about the f i rst incident of dom estic violence with his f a ther. He adm itted that he stabbed his f ather during an a rgum ent. S k i p p e r testif

ied that the Board m ade its decision based on both i nstances of dom esti c violence, not just the arrest resulting f rom the incident with Beasley

. ¶13. This Court f

inds that the circuit court did not err i n upholding Elkins’s parole revocation. Elkins f

a iled to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to

a reinstatem ent of his parole. Furtherm ore, the State showed that reasonable grounds outside of Elkins’s charge of

dom estic violence existed f or the revocation of

parole. ¶14. THE J UDGMENT OF THE SUNFLOWER COUNTY C IRCU I T COURT DENYING THE PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL R ELIEF IS AFFIRMED. A LL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING, P. J., BARNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FAIR, JAMES, WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

5