IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2016-CP-00320-COA MICHAEL DRANKUS A/K/A MICHAEL F. DRANKUS A/K/A MICHAEL FREDERICK DRANKUS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/2016 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROGER T. CLARK COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL DRANKUS (PRO SE) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DARRELL C. BAUGHN ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POSTCONVICTION RELIEF TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: DENIED MOTION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 04/11/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., ISHEE AND GREENLEE, JJ. LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Michael D rankus appeals the H arrison County Circuit Cour t ’ s d enial of h is m otion
f or postconviction relief (PCR). Finding the trial court correctly denied Drankus’s m otion, we af f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. In 1987, Drankus was convicted of c apital m urd e r , r o b b e r y , a n d b u r g l ary of a dwelling. He was released on p arole i n 2 001, but his parole was r e v o k e d i n 2006 f ornum erous violations. D rankus was again paroled in 2007, but he violated n um erous parole

conditions and was returned to the custody o f the Mississippi Departm e nt of Corr e ctions (MDOC) in 2012. ¶3. The Mississippi Parole Board ( MPB) denied Drankus parole o n A pril 2 9, 2015, and

set h is next parole h earing f or April 30, 2018. D rankus f i led a PCR m otion claim ing that he

was entitled to a parole hearing at least every y e ar pursuant to M ississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-18(6) (Rev. 2015); thus, the three-y ear set of f 1 violated his c onstitutional and statutory rights. The trial court denied Drankus’s m otion, f i n d i n g t hat i t was a successive writ since Drankus had f

i led a prior PCR m o tion in 1996. 2 The trial court f urther stated that it did not have jurisdiction over parole m atters. ¶4. Drankus now appeals, asserting that the trial c o u r t h a d j u r i s d i c t ion t o address the

m erits of his PCR m otion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶5. Wh e n reviewing a trial court’s denial or d ism issal of a PCR m otion, w e w i l l o n l y disturb the trial c ourt’s decision if i t is clearly erroneous; however, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review. Hughes v
. State , 106 So. 3d 836, 838 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

1 “ A ‘set o f

f ’ in p aro le term in o lo g y is th e p erio d o f tim e an in m ate w h o h a s b een d en ied p a ro le m

u st w ait b ef

o re h is p a ro le is reco n sid ered .” Wa y v. M iller , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 3 8 n .1 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) (citatio n o m itted ).

2 In an u n p u b lish ed o p in io n , th e M ississip p i S u p rem e C o u rt af f irm ed th e t rial co u rt’s d ecisio n t o d e n y D ran k u s ’s req u est f o r relief

. D ra n ku s v. S ta te , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). 2DISCUSSION

¶6. In 2014, the Legislature passed House Bill 585, which added and am ended num erous provisions regarding sentencing and parole eligibility

. S ee 2 0 1 4 M iss. L aw s ch

. 4 5 7

. These

am endm ents went i nto ef f ect o n J uly 1, 2014. Section 47-7-18 is one o f t he newly added

statutes and states, in part, “Any inm ate not released at the tim e of the i nm ate’s initial parole date shall have a parole hearing at least every y ear.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-18(6). ¶7. The M ississippi Suprem e Court re c e n t l y a d d r e s s e d t h i s i s s u e in Drankus v. Mississippi Parole Board , 2015-CP-01049-SCT, 2017 W L 449621 (Miss. Feb. 2, 2 017). Drankus had
f iled a P CR m o tion in the Sunf lower County Circuit Court raising a sim ilar issue regarding his parole set-of

f d ate. The Sunf

lower County Circuit Court dism issed D rankus’s m otion f or f ailure to state a claim

upon which relief

could be granted. Id. at *1 (¶1). The Mississippi Suprem e C ourt af

f irm ed the trial court’s decision, f i nding that the t r ial court did not have “jurisdiction to h ear an appeal of the parole board’s decision to set of f Drankus’s next parole hearing f or three y ears.” Id. at *2 (¶7). See also Cotton v. Miss. Parole Bd. , 863 S o. 2d 917, 921 (¶11) (Miss. 2003) (trial courts have no jurisdiction to grant or deny parole). ¶8. Regarding the recent am endm ents to the p a r o l e s t a tutes, the suprem e court f urther stated that “those am endm ents do not apply to p risoners l ike Dran k u s w h o w e r e adm itted prior to t he am endm ents’ ef f ective date.” D r a n k

u s , 2 0 17 W L 449621, at *2 (¶7). See Drankus v. Fisher , 2 04 So. 3d 1232, 1236 (¶14) (Miss. 2016) ( prisoners adm itted to MDOC custody prior to J uly 1, 2014, were not entitled to a case plan under M ississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-3.1 (Rev. 2015)).

3¶9. Accordingly , we f ind the trial court properly denied Drankus’s PCR m otion. ¶10. THE JUDGMEN T O F T H E H A R R I S O N C O U N T Y C I R C U I T C O URT, S E C O N D J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T , D E N Y I N G T H E M O T I O N F O R POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS A F F I R M E D . A L L C OSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON COUNTY.
I R V I N G A N D G R I F F I S , P . J J . , B A RNES, ISHEE, CARLTON, FA I R , W I L S O N , GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

4