I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CP - 0 0 7 0 8 - S CT J AM ESFRANKL I

N PUTNAM
v. CH RI STOPH ER B . EPPS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 26/ 2010 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. JA N N IE M
. L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: YAZOO COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES F RA NK LI N PU TNA M ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY: R. S TE W ART S M I TH, J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 14/ 2011 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 C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. In 1 9 9 7 , the C ir c u it C o u rt o f H a rriso n C o u n ty ac ce p ted J am es F ran k li n P u tnam ’s g u ilty p lea to o n e c o u n t o f a rm e d ro b b e ry . T h e c irc u it co u rt se n ten c e d P u tn a m to tw e n ty ye a r s i n the c us t od y of the M i s s i s s i pp i Depa rtmento f Corr e c t i on s ( M D O C) , t o run
c o n c u rr e n t l y wi th a f

e d e r a l s e n t e n c e . P u tn a m c u rr e n t l y i s i n c a r c e r a t e d i n Ya z o o Co u n ty . He f i l edamot i on f

orp os t - c on vi c t i on r e l i e f ( PCR ) a r gu i ng h e i s e nt i t l e d t o e a rne d t i me. The C ou rto f A pp eal s aff

i rm ed the Y azoo C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rt ’s dis m i ssalof the P C R becau se its s u bje c t m a tte r w a s c o g n iz ab le u n d e r th e a d m in is tr a tiv e -r e v ie w p ro c e d u re . P utnam v. E pps , 9 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 3 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); s ee M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 47- 5- 801 t o 47- 5- 807 ( R ev. 2004)
. A f

t erexhaus t i ng hi s adm i ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , Putnam fi l ed a c om pl ai nt

### 2

in the circu itco u rt p u rsua n t to M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 4 7 -5-8 0 7 , ch all en g ing the M D O C ’s comput at i on of

hi s earned- t i m e al l ow ance on gr ounds i ncl udi ng equalpr ot ect i on. H e ar gued th a t th e M D O C ’s d e c isio n to d e n y h im ea rn e d ti m e w a s e rro n e o u s b e c a u se h e is en tit led to
e a rn e d tim e u n d e r th e g o v e rn in g s tatu tes a n d b e c a u se th e M D O C h a s g ra n ted e a rn e d tim e to
s im ila rl y s itu a te d p ri s o n e rs . ¶2. T he ci r cui tcourtdi s m i ssed P utnam ’s co m plai nt upo n a fi nd i ng thatvenue w as i m pr operi n Y azoo Coun ty. Putnam appeal s t o thi s C ourt , r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : 1)
w hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai ntf ori m pr opervenue; and 2) w hether Putna m ha s b e e n de ni e d hi s c on s t i tut i on a l r i gh tt o e qu a l p r ot e c t i on b y no tr e c e i vi ng earned t i m e on hi s sent ence . B ecaus e w e f i nd thatvenue w as pr operi n the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H in d s C o u n ty , w e rev e rse an d rem a n d this ca se fo r tran sfe r to tha t circ u it-co u rtd is tr ic t. B ecaus e Putnam’s f

i r s ti s s ue i s di s pos i t i ve of thi s appeal , w e do notdi s cus s hi s s econd i s s ue. DI S CU S S I ON ¶3. T he St at e ar gues thatPutnam’s compl ai ntw as a mot i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef and, b ec au se it w as n o t f

il ed in the co u n ty o f co n v ict ion as re q u ir ed b y the M issi ssipp i U n if o rm P o s t- C o n v ic tio n C o lla te ra l R e lie f A c t ( U P C C R A ), th e c ir c u it c o u rtp ro p e rl y d is m is s e d it. See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -7 (S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). W e fin d th a t th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit becaus e Putnam’s f

i l i ng i s nota mot i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef
. R ather , i ti s a compl ai nt br oughtpur s uantt o the s t atut es governi ng the admi ni s tr at i ve- r evi ew pr ocedur e i n M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n s 4 7 -5 -8 0 1 th ro u g h 4 7 -5 -8 0 7
. ¶4
. T he admi ni s tr at i ve-r evi ew pr ocedur e “c ons t i tut e[ s ] the admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es avai l abl e t o of

f ender s f orthe purpos e of

pr es ervi ng any caus e of act i on s uch of

f ender s m ay

### 3

claim t o ha v e ag ains t the S tat e o f M issi ssipp i, th e D ep artm en t o f C o rrecti o n s or i ts o ffic ials
orempl oyees . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47-5- 803( 1) (Rev. 2004). J udi ci al re vi ew i s avai l abl e af t er an of f enderh as exhaus t ed al l admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47- 5- 807 ( R ev. 20 04 ). S ect i on 47 -5- 80 7 p rovi des that “[a] n y o ffender w ho i s aggri eved by an ad verse deci s i on r ender ed pur s uantt o a ny a dm i ni s tr at i ve r evi ew pr ocedur e underSect i ons 47- 5- 801 thr ough 47- 5- 807 m ay, w i thi n thi rty ( 30) days af t erre ceiptof the agenc y’ s f i nal deci s i on, s eek jud ici al rev iew o f th e d ec isi o n . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5-8 0 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶5. I n contras t w i th the admi ni s tr at i ve- r evi ew pr ocedur e, pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ovi des a mechani s m f

orcol l at er al att ack on a convi ct i on or s ent ence thati s i ni t i at ed by fi l i ng a m ot i on in th e tr ia l c o u rt . See M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 99-39- 5, 99- 39- 7 ( Supp. 2010)
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi U nif orm P ost -C on vict i on C oll at eral R el i ef A ct(U P C C R A ) pr ov i des: (1 ) A n y p e rso n se n ten c e d b y a c o u rt o f re c o rd o f th e S tate o f M is s is sip p i, i ncl udi ng a per s on curr ent l y i ncar cer at ed, ci vi l l y comm i tt ed, on par ol e or pr obat i on orsubj ectt o sex of f enderre gi s tr at i on forthe per i od of the r egi s tr at i on orforthe f

i r s tfi ve ( 5) year s of the r egi s tr at i on, w hi cheve ri s the s hort erper i od, m a y fi le a m o tio n to v a c a te , s e t a s id e o r c o rr e c t th e ju d g m e n t o r s e n te n c e , a m ot i on t o re ques tfor ens i c D N A t es t i ng of bi ol ogi calevi dence , ora mot i on f or an o ut- of- t i m e app eal i f the p ers on cl ai m s: ( a) T hatthe convi ct i on orthe s ent ence w as i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on o f th e Co n s t i tu t i o n o f

th e Un i t e d S t a t e s o rth e Co n s t i tu t i o n o rl a ws o f M iss iss ip p i; (b) T hat the tr i al cou rtw as w ith ou tj uri sdi ct i on t o im po se se n ten c e ; ( c) T hatthe s t atut e underw hi ch the convi ct i on and/ ors ent ence w a s o b tain e d is u n c o n stitu tio n a l; (d ) T h a t th e se n ten c e e x c e e d s th e m a x im u m a u th o riz e d b y law ;

### 4 (e ) T h a t th e re e x ists e v id e n c e o f m a ter ial fa c ts, n o t p re v io u sly pr es ent ed and hear d, thatr equi r es vaca t i on of the convi ct i on or se n ten c e in th e in ter e st o f ju stic e ; ( f ) T hatther e exi s t s bi ol ogi cale vi dence s ecur ed i n r el at i on t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o rp r o s e c u t i o n a tt e n d a n tt o th e p e t i t i o n e r 's convi ct i on nott es t ed, or , i f pr evi ous l y t es t ed, thatc an be s ubj ect ed to a d d iti o n a l D N A tes tin g , tha t w o u ld p ro v id e a re a so n ab le lik e lih o o d o f m o re p ro b a tiv e re su lts, a n d th a t tes tin g w o u ld d e m o n stra te b y re a so n ab le p ro b ab ili ty th a t th e p e tit io n e r w o u ld nothave bee n convi ct ed orw oul d have r ece i ved a l es s ers ent ence i f f a v o r ab l e r e s u l t s h a d b e e n o b t a i n e d th r o u g h s u c h f o r e n s i c DNA te s tin g a t th e tim e o f th e o ri g in a l p ro s e c u tio n . (g ) T h a t h is p lea w a s m a d e in v o lu n tar ily ; ( h) T hathi s s ent ence has expi r ed; hi s pr obat i on, par ole or con dit i on al r el ease unl aw ful l y revoke d; or he i s otherw i se u n law fu lly h e ldin c u sto d y ; (i ) T h at he is en ti tl ed to an o u t- o f-t im e a p p ea l; o r (j) T h a t th e c o n v ictio n o r s e n te n c e is o th e rw ise su b jec t to co ll ateral att a c k u p o n an y g rou n d s o f all eg ed erro r he retofo re avai l abl e underany comm on l aw , s t atut ory orotherw r i t , m ot i on, p e titio n , p ro c e e d in g o r r e m e d y . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -5 (1 ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶6
. B o th the U P C C R A an d S ec ti o n 4 7 -5-8 0 7 are rou tes for a p ri so n er to o b tai n civil r eli ef; the pr i s onerel ect s w hi ch r out e t o pur s ue. I n G u y v. Sta te , 915 S o. 2d 508, 510 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ), the C o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t a claim that the M D O C h ad m iscalcu lat ed a p ri so n er’s
earned t i m e w as no ti n the natur e of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

, butw as cogni zabl e underthe
a d mi n i s tr a t i v e - r e v i e w p r o c e du r e . Th e p r i s o n e r ’ s a r g u me n tab o u th i s e n t i t l e me n tt o e a rn e dt i me
w as al m os ti dent i calt o Putnam’s
. T her e, the courts t at ed: T hi s m att eri s noti n the natur e of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef

. Post
- convi ct i on r el i ef m att er s addr es s i s s ues rel at ed t o the pr i s oner ’ s convi ct i on thatw er e not

### 5

a d d re s s e d a t th e tim e o f th e ju d g m e n t. W il lia m s v. S ta te , 6 69 S o. 2d 44, 52 ( M i s s . 1996)
. G uy i s notc ont es t i ng the val i di ty of hi s convi ct i on orthe r es ul t i ng s ent ence . H e i s cont es t i ng the M D O C ’ s c om put at i on of t i m e thatw i l l al l ow f

or hi s ear l y r el eas e f

r om pr i s on. I d. ¶7. W e agr ee w i th the C ourt of A ppeal s ’ hol di ng that a chal l enge t o the M D O C ’ s earnedt i m e ca l cul at i on i s cogni zabl e underthe admi ni s tr at i ve- r evi ew pr ocedur e, w i th j udi ci al r evi ew
av ail ab le as p rov ided in S ec ti o n 4 7 -5-8 0 7
. N o n e o f the c ateg o ri es li stedin S ec ti o n 9 9 -39 -5 embra ces a cha l l enge t o the M D O C ’ s earned- t i m e ca l cul at i on. E arned t i m e i s nota r educt i on of s ent ence becaus e “[ a] ny i nm at e, w ho is rel eas ed bef or e the expi r at i on of

hi s t erm of
s ent ence under this sect i on, s hal l be pl ace d underearned- r el eas e s upervi s i on unt i l the expi r at i on of the t erm of s ent ence . T he i nm at e s hal l r et ai n i nm at e s t atus and r emai n underthe ju risd ictio n o f th e d e p a rtm e n t.” M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5 -1 3 8 (6 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). In h is c o m p lain t, P u tn a m a rg u e s th a t th e M D O C e rro n e o u sly h a s d e n ied h im th e ri g h t t o s e rv e p a rt o f h is tw en ty-y ea r sen tenc e o n ea rne d -release su p erv isi o n . H e d o es n o t argu e th a t th e tri al co u rt
e rre d , in 1 9 9 7 , b y im p o sin g th e tw e n ty -y e a r se n ten c e o r th a t th e se n ten c e w a s o b tain e d in vi ol at i on of

hi s cons t i tut i onal or s t atut ory ri ght s . T her ef or e, Putnam prope r l y s oughtr el i ef f or the al l eged mi s cal cul at i on of hi s earned t i m e by f

i r s texhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es
w i th the M D O C and then f i l i ng a compl ai ntw i thi n thi rty days of the f i nal deci s i on of

that ag en cy . M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 4 7 -5-8 0 3 , 4 7 -5-8 0 7 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶8. T he c i r c ui tc ou rtdi s m i s s ed Putnam’s compl ai ntupon a f i ndi ng thatvenue w as i m pr oper in Y a z o o C o u n ty . T h e sta tu tes g o v e rn in g th e a d m in istra tiv e -re v iew p ro c e d u re d o n o t co n tain

### 6

a venue pr ovi s i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 47- 5- 801, 47- 5- 807 ( R ev. 2004)
. V enue i n ci vi l cas es is g o v e rn e d b y M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3 , w h ich p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: C i vi l act i ons of

w hi ch the ci r cui tcourthas or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on s hal l be comm ence d i n the county w her e the def endantr es i des , or , i f

a corpor at i on, i n the county of

i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of

bus i nes s , ori n the co un ty w her e a s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctorom i s s i on occurr ed or w here a s ubs t ant i al eventthatcaus ed the i nj ury occurr ed. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( I ) ( R ev. 2004)
. T he C ourtof A ppeal s has appl i ed Sect i on 11
- 11
- 3( 1) ( a ) ( I ) t o compl ai nt s br oughtunderthe admi ni s tr at i ve- r evi ew pr ocedur e. I n G uy , the C ourtof A ppeal s expl ai ned: A l l def endant s w er e sue d i n thei rcapac i ty as empl oyees of the South M i s s i s s i ppi C o rre c tio n a l In stitu te ( S M C I) w h ich is lo c a ted in G re e n e C o u n ty . V e n u e is appr opr i at e i n the county i n w hi ch a def endantr es i des
. M i s s . C ode A nn. §11- 11- 3 ( R ev. 2004)
. T her ef or e, the C i r cui tC ourtof G r eene C ounty w as the appr opr i at e venue f

orG uy’ s pet i t i on. G uy , 915 So. 2d at510. A nd, i n Hor ton v. E pps , 9 6 6 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 1 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), the C ourtof

A ppeal s s t at ed: Sect i on 11- 11- 3( a) pr ovi des thatvenue i s pr operi n the county w her e a def endant r es i des ori n the county w her e the ac torom i s s i on occurr ed. H ort on w as in c a rc e ra ted a t th e C e n tra l M iss iss ip p i C o rre c tio n a l F a c ility lo c a ted in R a n k in C ounty. T w o of

the def endant s w orked atthe f

aci l i ty and the ac t i ons thatdeni ed H ort on trus ty t i m e occ urr ed i n R anki n C ounty. Hor ton , 966 So. 2d at841. B ecaus e tw o of the def endant s w orked i n R anki n C ounty and the
a c t o r o m iss io n o c c u rre d in R a n k in C o u n ty , the co u rt fo u n d tha t ve n u e w a s p ro p e r in R a n k in C o u n ty u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -1 1 -3 (a ). I d. ¶9. T hi s C ourtf

i nds thatSect i on 11-11- 3 appl i es t o cl ai m s br oughtpur s uantt o Sect i on 47- 5 -8 0 7 o f th e a d m in istra tiv e -re v iew -p ro c e d u re sta tu tes . P u tn a m ’s c o m p lain t n a m e s a sin g le def endant , C hr i s t opherE pps , bas ed on act i ons t aken i n hi s capac i ty as the com m i s s i onerof the

### 7

M D O C
. T he of

f i ces of the comm i s s i on er of the M D O C ar e l ocat ed i n the C i ty of J acks on,
w h ic h is s itu a te d in th e F ir s t J u d ic ia l D is tr ic t o f H in d s C o u n ty . See M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm ent of C orr ect i ons , http: //w w w . m doc. s t at e. m s . us / of f i ce _of _the_com m i s s i oner . htm ( l as tvi s i t ed 04/ 13/ 2011)
. W e not e thatPutnam m akes n o ar gum entthata “s ubs t ant i al al l eged a ctor
om i ssi on ”or a “subst anti al even tthat caused the inj ury occ urr ed” in Y azoo C ou nty. M is s. C ode A nn. §11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( i ) ( R ev. 2004) T her ef or e, venue i s pr operi n the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H i nds C ounty, noti n Y azoo C ounty. “W hen an act i on i s fi l ed l ayi ng venue i n the
w r ong county, the ac t i on s hal l notbe di s m i s s ed, butthe court , on t i m el y m ot i on, s hal l tr ans f er the a cti o n to the co u rt i n w hi ch i tm i ghtprope r l y have been f i l ed and the ca s e s hal l pr ocee d as though or i gi nal l y f

i l ed ther ei n. ” M i s s . R
. C i v. P. 82( d) )
. A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e and r emand f orthe C i r cui tC ourtof

Y azoo C ounty t o tr ans f erthi s cas e t o the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H in d s C o u n ty . CO NC L US I ON ¶1 0
. B e c a u se v e n u e is p ro p e r in the F ir st Jud ici al D istri ct of H ind s C o u n ty, th is case is
r ever s ed and r emanded f ortr ans f ert o the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. ¶ 1 1
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.