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 1 4 7 6 - CO A DERRI CK J ACK S ON A/ K/A DERR I CK L. J ACKS ON A/ K/A DE RRI CK LA M OND J AC KS ON 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 : 06/ 17/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . ASH LEY H I NES CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: S UNFL OW ER C OUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: DER RI CK J AC KSO N ( 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 : DI SM I SS ED M OTI ON FOR POSTCO NV I CTI ON RELI EF D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 20/ 2015 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 L E E , C . J. , R O B E R T S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D err i ck J acks on appea l s the Sunf l ow erC ounty C i r cui tCourt ’ s de ni al of the r eques t ed
re lief a n d dism issal o f his m o ti o n for po st- co n v ict ion rel ief (P C R ). Jac k so n clai m s h e is
e nt i t l e d t o PCR b e c a us e the tr i a l c ou rte rr e d by r e vo ki ng h i s p os t - r e l e a s e s up e rvi s i on ( PRS) and or der i ng hi m t o s erve hi s pr evi ous l y s us pended ei ght
- years ent ence i n the cus t ody of the M is s is s ip p i D e p a rt m e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s (M D O C ). F in d in g n o e rr o r, w e a ff irm . FACTS

### InFebruary 2013, theSunfl ower County Circuit

Court entered an agree d order 1 

### dis mi ss ing t

he charge against

Jac kson of pos se ss ion of

a f irearm by a f el on due to theState ’s failure to pro vid e a speedy trial. 2 ¶2. O n J une 29, 2005, D err i ck J acks on w as convi ct ed of arm ed r obbery i n the Sunf l ow er C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt . T h e tria l c o u rt s e n ten c e d J a c k so n to se rv e a ter m o f fifte e n y e a rs in th e c u s to d y o f th e M D O C , w ith e ig h t y e a rs s u s p e n d e d , a n d fi v e y e a rs o f P R S . ¶3 . I n M ar ch 2012, J acks on w as arr e s t e d a ndc ha r ge d w i th a gg r a vat ed as s aul t and p o ss e ss io n o f a firea rm b y a fe lo n . O n A p ril 2 , 2 0 1 2 , th e tri a l co u rt co n d u c ted a h e a rin g to 1 det erm i ne i f

J acks on vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s P R S. T he tr i al courtf ound thatJ acks on i ndeed
v iolated th e term s an d co n d it ion s o f his P R S b y fail ing to rep o rt t o h is pro b ati o n o ffi ce r, fa ili n g to su b m it to a re q u ire d c h e m ica l te st, a n d fa ili n g to p a y s u p e rv isio n fe e s. A s a re su lt, the tr ai l c ourtr evoked J acks on’ s PR S and or der ed J acks on t o s erve the ei ght
- years ent ence thatthe tr i al courti ni t i al l y s us pended. ¶4. J acks on f

i l ed a PC R m ot i on on A pr i l 2, 2013, cl ai m i ng that the tr i al cou rt err ed by
r evoki ng hi s PR S af

t erf i nd i ng thath e com m i tt ed a c r i m e. J acks on f urthercl ai m ed thatat h is re v o c a tio n h e a rin g , the trial c o u rt fa iled to p ro v id e h im w ith a c h a n c e to e x p la in h is f ai l ur e t o r eportt o hi s f i el d of f i cerorexpl ai n hi s f

ai l ur e t o pay hi s s upervi s i on f ees and
r es t i tut i on. T he tr i al courtdi s m i s s ed J acks on’ s PC R m ot i on. T hi s appea l f ol l ow ed. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5 . W h e n re v iew in g a trial c o u rt' s d ism iss a l o f a P C R m o tio n , th e ap p e llate c o u rt “ w ill
n o t d is tu rb th e tr ia l c o u rt ' s fa c tu a l f in d in g s u n le s s t h e y a re fo u n d to b e c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s .” P re sle y v . Sta te , 48 So. 3d 526, 528-29 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng B ro w n v . Sta te , 731 So.

### 3

2 d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (¶ 6 ) ( M is s . 1 9 9 9 )) . Q u e s tio n s o f la w , h o w e v e r, a re re v ie w e d d e n o v o . Id . at529 (¶ 1 0 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 6 . Ja c k so n a rg u e s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g h is P C R m o tio n . Ja c k so n a d m its th a t th e In d ian o la, M iss iss ip p i P o lice D e p a rtm e n t arre ste d h im a n d c h a rg e d h im w ith aggr avat ed as s aul tand bei ng a f el on i n pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm i n M arch 2 01 2. J acks on s t at es that as ar es ul tof thi s arr es tand cha r ge, the tr i al courtr evoked hi s PR S. J acks on a s s e rt s th a t th e “ m e re fa c t o f b e in g a rr e s te d a n d c h a rg e d w ith a fe lo n y i s n o t, p e r s e , a vi ol at i on” of

PR S. Jackson clai m s the tr i al courtneverconvi ct ed hi m of the cha r ges of ag g rav ated assa u ltan d b eing a fe lon in p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm , an d as a resu lt , the tr ial co u rt e rre d in re v o k in g h is P R S . T h e re c o rd re fle c ts, ho w e v e r, th a t Ja c k so n fa iled to re p o rt to h is probati on off

i cer, as r equ i red f

or the suspe nsi on of hi s sent ence, f or ov er si x m on ths. A s a re s u lt, J a c k s o n w a s a rr e s te d in In d ia n o la in M a rc h 2 0 1 2 . ¶ 7 . Ja c k so n fu rth e r c laim s th a t a t th e tim e o f th e re v o c a tio n h e a rin g , h e h a d p a idh is p a stdue f i nes . Jac ks on s t at es thathe made s ever al uns ucce s s f ul att empt s t o cal l hi s f

i el d of f i cer t o l ethi m know w hy he coul d notpay hi s f ees orr eport . J acks on a l l eges thati f he had not h a d p e n d in g c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a t th e tim e o f h is re v o c a tio n h e a rin g , “th e re su lts w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t,” a n d th e trial ju d g e w o u ld h a v e g iv e n Ja c k so n a c h a n c e to e x p lain h im se lf. Ja c k so n ’s a rg u m e n ts fa il to ac k n o w led g e tha t he faile d to re p o rt o r to m a k e h im se lf
a v a ila b le fo r c h e m ic a l te s tin g fo r o v e r s ix m o n th s . ¶8. M i s s i ssi pp i law p rovi des that“the PC R m ovant‘ bear s the bur den of pr es ent i ng a rec o rd w h ich is su ffi cien t t o u n d erg ir d h is assign m en ts of erro r. ’” Sm ith v . Sta te , 129 So. 3d

### 4

243, 245 ( ¶6) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng W ill ia m s v . Sta te , 52 2 S o. 2d 20 1, 20 9 (M i ss. 1988) ) . W her e the St at e seeks to revoke a pr obat i oner ’ s PR S bas ed upon an a l l egat i on of
cr i m i nal act i vi ty, the St at e “mustshow proof of an ac tual convi ct i on, orthata cr i m e has been
c o m m itte d a n d th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t th e p ro b a ti o n e r c o m m itte d th e o ff e n s e .” B ro w n v . Sta te , 8 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 8 , 1 0 6 0 (¶ 9 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶9 . T h e tra n script of th e A p ri l 2 , 20 1 2 revo ca ti o n he aring refle c ts th a t M D O C F ield O f f i cerT ony W arr en t es t i f

i ed thatJ acks on vi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s P R S. Speci f i cal l y, O f f i cerW arr en s t at ed thatJ acks on l as tr eport ed t o hi s pr obat i on off i ceron Sept ember6, 2011; J acks on f

ai l ed t o pa y hi s s upervi s i on f ees , a nd he w as i n a rr ear s $165; J acks on f ai l ed to p a y th e S u n flo w e r C o u n ty C irc u it C ler k ’s O ffic e , $ 6 ,4 6 4 in p a y m e n ts; a n d th a t as a re su lt of hi s f ai l ure t o report , Jackson al so fai l ed to subm i tt o the requ i red chem i cal analysi s. O f f i cerW arr en al s o s t at ed on the r ecor d thatthe Indi anol a Pol i ce D epartm entchar ged J a c k s o n w ith a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt a n d b e in g a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a w e ap o n . ¶ 1 0 . T h e tran sc rip t refle c ts th a t th e tri a l j u d g e as k e d Ja c k so n if h e h a d an y th in g to sa y in
r es pons e t o the cha r ges br oughtagai ns thi m . J acks on r es ponded: Y e s , s ir . O n th a t — I d o n ’th a v e n o th in g to s a y a b o u t th e r e p o rt in g , b u t I . . . done pai d up on m y P. O . , and I pai d s om e on my courtcos t s and f i nes s i nce I b e e n in c a rc e ra te d th e s e tw o w e e k s . B utthe I ndi anol a Pol i ce D epartm ent , I have n’ tbeen t o [ an] i ni t i al appear ance . I haven’ tbeen i nves t i gat ed. T hey have n’ tgave no f i ngerpr i nt s , no gunpow der f i ngerpr i nt s ornothi ng. [ T here ar e] no w i tnes s . . . s t at ement s on m e or n o th i n g . I wo u l d j u s tl i k e t o c o n t i n u e m y p r o b a t i o n h e a r i n g u n t i l we kn o w — f urthernot i ce of

w hat ’ s goi ng on w i th thes e othertw o char ges , becaus e they [ haven’ t ] pr es s ed cha r ges on m e . . . . T hey j us tgoi ng of f hear s ay. ¶ 1 1 . T h e trial ju d g e th e n a sk e d Ja c k so n if Ja c k s o n u n d e rsto o d h is o b lig a tio n to re p o rt to

### We note the revoc ation he aring wa s he ld in Apri l 2012. 2 

### 5 hi s pr obat i on of

f i cer . J acks on a ns w er ed af f i rm at i vel y. The tr i al j udge expl ai ned t o J acks on thathe vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s PR S by f

ai l i ng t o r eport . O f

f i cerW arr en r ecomm ended that J acks on’ s ei ght
- years us pended s ent ence be r evoked. T he tr i al j udge agr eed, and r evoked J acks on’ s s us pended s ent ence and r emanded hi m t o the cus t ody of the M D O C . J acks on then fi led h is PC R m o ti o n see k ing reli ef. ¶12. T he tr i al court ’ s or der di s m i s s i ng J acks on’ s PC R m ot i on s t at ed: 2 Jac k so n ’s pro b ati o n w as rev o k ed for n u m ero u s rea so n s: f ail u re to rep o rt m onthl y as di r ect ed, l as tre port ed dat e w as [ Sept ember6, 2011] ; f ai l ur e t o pay su p e rv ise d fe e s, a m o u n t in a rre a rs $ 1 6 5 ; fa ilu re to p a y S u n flo w e r C o u n ty C i r cui tC l erk O f

f i ce, amounti n arr ear s $6, 464; f ai l ur e t o s ubm i tt o chemi cal anal ys i s , unabl e t o t es t[ J acks on] due t o hi m notr eport i ng; and r ece i ptof new char ges by the Indi ano l a Pol i ce D epartm entf orthe cr i m es of

aggr avat ed as s aul tand pos s es s i on of a w eapon by af

el on. T h e tri al co u rtex p lai n ed that o u t of allof th e rea so n s l ist ed ab o v e, itfou n d “fail ing t o rep o rt
a n d th e re c e iv in g n e w c h a rg e s to b e e q u a lly e g re g io u s.” T h e tria l c o u rt sta ted th a t it“ w o u ld have r evoked J acks on’ s pr obat i on f orf ai l i ng t o r eport , r egar dl es s of the f actthathe had ne w char ges pendi ng. ” ¶1 3. T hi s C our t ha s he l d tha t the a mount of e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a t a r e vo c a t i on he ar i ng m u s t b e e n o u g h to “ s h o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n t ‘m o re lik e ly th a n n o t’ v io la te d p r o b a tio n .” Y o u n g e r v . Sta te , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 (¶ 1 3 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); s ee al s o A nders on v. S ta te , 8 9 S o . 3 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 3 (¶2 2 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 1 ). In L o tt v. S ta te , 115 S o. 3d 903, 908 (¶1 5 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 3 ), this C o u rtfou n d that at th e re v o ca ti o n h ea ri n g , the tri al co u rt to ldth e p e tit io n e r ex a c tly w h a t t e rm s o f h is P R S h e v io late d : “f a ili n g to re p o rt to h is fie ld of f i cer ; f ai l i ng t o pay courtcos t s , r es t i tut i on, c om m uni ty- s ervi ce f ees , and f

i nes ; and f

ai l i ng

### 6

t o part i ci pat e i n the comm uni ty- s ervi ce pr ogr am. ” Thi s C ourtconcl uded: “I ti s appar entthat the tr i al cou rtw as ent i t l ed t o r evoke [ the pet i t i oner ’ s PR S] and i m pos e hi s s ent ence bas ed on the evi dence pre s ent ed atthe r evoca t i on hear i ng[ . ] ” Id . T he L o tt co u rt fu rth e r sta ted , “it is c lea r fro m th e re c o rd a n d [th e p e tit io n e r’s ] ple a d in g s th a t h e k n e w th e c o n d iti o n s o f h is [ PRS. ] ” Id . at ( ¶16). T he L o tt cou rtult i m at el y h el d that“the fi nd i ng s of other vi olat i on s, s uch as notr eport i ng t o hi s f i el d off i cerand payi ng cert ai n f i nes , ar e s uf

f i ci entt o j us t i f

y the
r evoca t i on. ” Id . ¶14. A f

t erourr evi ew , w e f

i nd thatthe St at e pr es ent ed s uf f i ci ente vi dence a tthe r evoca t i on hear i ng t o show thatJ acks on m or e l i kel y than notvi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s pr obat i on by fa ilin g to re p o rt . Se e id . (V iolati o n s, i n clud ing fai lure to re p o rtan d fail u re to p ay fi n es, are s u ff ic ie n t to ju s tif

y re v o c a tio n o f P R S .). ¶15. T he r evoca t i on hear i ng w as hel d i n A pr i l 2012, and the tr i al court f ound thatJ acks on h a d n o t re p o rte d s in c e S e p tem b e r 2 0 1 1 . Ja c k so n w a s a rre ste d b y th e In d ian o la p o lice in M ar ch 2012. Jac ks on pre s ent ed no evi dence or ar gum entas t o w hy he f ai l ed t o r eportf

r om Sept ember2011 unt i l hi s arr es ti n M ar ch 2012. A tthe r evoca t i on hear i ng, J acks on r ece i ved th e o p p o rtu n ity to re sp o n d to th e S tate ' s c laim s. T h e tran sc rip t sh o w s th a t Ja c k so n fa iled to s ta te th a t h e d id n o t v io la te th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f h is P R S . Se e B o y d v . Sta te , 65 So. 3d 358, 361 ( ¶13) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) . The r evoca t i on- hear i ng tr ans cr i ptr ef l ect s thatthe tri al j ud ge aske d Jackso n if he und ers t oo d his obli gati on t o report . Jackson answ ered, “Y es, s i r . ” The tr ans cr i ptal s o r ef l ect s thatthe tr i al j udge cl ear l y s t at ed thatJ acks on “ vi ol at ed the t erm s of [ hi s ] proba t i onary st atus by f ai l [ i ng] t o re port . ” A s a re s ul t , J acks on’ s ar gum entthat the tr i al courtr evoked hi s PR S bas ed on hi s arr es tand char ge for agg r avat ed as s aul tand

### 7

b e in g a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm la c k s m e ri t. 

### Ass tate d, thef ai lureto report con stitutes a su fficient groundto rev ok e a susp end ed sentence o r pro batio n. SeeLott v. Sta te , 115 So. 3d 903, 908 (¶15) (Mis s. Ct. App. 2013). There fore, thetrial c ourt ’srul ing wasnot c le arly er

rone ous in dis mi ss ing Jacks on’sPCR motion sincethe trial judg e found Jacks on fail ed to report

asre quired f

or the suspensi on of hi s s entenc e. B ased o n the tra n sc rip t o f th e re v o c a tio n h e a rin g , w h ich re fle c ts th a t th e tria l ju d g e p ro v id e d Ja c k so n w ith th e o p p o rtu n ity to re sp o n d to th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , w e a ls o fin d th a t Ja c k so n fa iled to
m eethi s bur den of

pr ovi ng thatthe tr i al co urtf ai l ed t o pr ovi de hi m the opportuni ty t o be h e a rd a t th e re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g . ¶ 1 6 . THE J UDG M ENT OF THE CI RCU I T CO URT OF S UNFLOW ER CO UNTY DI S M I S S I NG THE M OTI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S AF F I RM ED . ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO SUNFLOW ER CO UNTY . LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ . , BA R N ES, ISH E E , R O BE R TS, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.