### Mis s. Code Ann. § 47-5- 193 (Re v. 2004) . 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 9 - CA- 0 0 9 7 1 - S CT KRI S TI FULGHAM v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 07/ 2009 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: OKTI BBE HA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: R. GR EGG M AY ER J AM E S W . CR AI G ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: BI LL Y L. GORE F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - POST CON VI CTI ON RELI EF 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 - 11/ 05/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W hi l e i ncar cer at ed, K r i s t i Ful gham had acce s s t o a cel l phone and c har ger , w hi ch s he p ro v id e d to an inm a te in the O k tib b e h a C o u n ty Ja il. F u lg h a m su b se q u e n tly p lea d e d g u ilty undera s t atut e thatprohi bi t s “any . . . per s on” f r om “f urni s h[ i ng] , at t empt [ i ng] t o f ur ni s h, oras s i s t [ i ng] i n f

urni s hi ng t o a ny of

f ender. . . a n una uthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce. ” She now 1
co n tend s tha t she p lead ed g u il ty to a n u n co n sti tuti o n all y v ag u e statute. F ind ing the rec o rd

### 2

needs m or e devel opm ent , w e r emand f oran evi dent i ary hear i ng on ( 1) w hetherFul gham had not i ce thata ce l l phone and c har gercons t i tut e an “ el ectr oni c devi ce, ” and i f so, (2) w hether th e y w e re “ u n a u th o riz e d ,” a n d (3 ) w h e th e r la w en fo rc e m e n t ha d d e fin ite sta n d a rd s to a v o id a rb itr a ry e n fo rc e m e n t. FACTS ¶2. I n A ugus t 2004, Ful gham w as i ncar cer at ed on a char ge of capi t al m ur der w hen s he
w as c a ug hta l l e ge dl y f urni s hi ng a c e l l p ho ne a nd c ha r ge rt o a no the ri nmat e . Ful gham pl eade d gui l ty t o f

urni s hi ng a n una uthor i zed el ectr oni c devi ce t o a n i nm at e. Ful gham w as sent enced t o eightyears. ¶3 . Ful gham t i m el y fi l ed a pet i t i on forpost - co nv i c t i on r e l i e f i n the tr i a l c ou r t and chal l enged he rgui l ty pl ea. Ful gham ar gued t hatt he s t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal l y vague, and thats he had pl eade d gui l ty t o a cri m e f orw hi ch s he ca nnotbe convi ct ed. She al s o ar gued thathe rc ouns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o c hal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i ty of the st atut e. ¶4. W i thout a hear i ng, the tr i al court i s s ued an or der denyi ng pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef . T he courthel d thats he had w ai ved the r i ghtt o ques t i on the s t atut e’ s cons t i tut i onal i ty by pl eadi ng g u ilty , a n d it f

o u n d th e s ta tu te w a s n o t u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e . DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t he r Ful gha m ’ s c l ai m i s pr oc e dur al l y ba r r e d. ¶5. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s U ni f or m Pos t - C onvi ct i on Col l at er al R el i ef ( PC R ) A ct , Ful gham has the r i ghtt o f

i l e a pe t i t i on f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef chal l engi ng the cons t i tut i onal i ty of

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-39- 5(1) (c ) ( Rev. 2007). 2 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 99-39- 21(1) (Re v. 2007) . 3 Sm ith v. S ta te , 477 So. 2d 191, 195 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ). 4 

### Jones v. C

ity of Meri

dian , 552 So. 2d 820, 824 ( Mis s. 1989); U.S. Const . ame nd. 5 

### XIV§ 1 . 3 t he s t atut e underw hi ch s he w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d. H ow ever , the PC R A ctal so 2 p ro v id e s th a t: Fai l ur e by a pr i s onert o ra i s e obj ect i ons , def ens es , cl ai m s , quest i ons , i s s ues or err or s ei theri n f

actorl aw w hi ch are capabl e of det erm i nat i on attr i al and/ or on di r ectappea l , r egar dl es s of w hethers uch ar e b ased on t he l aw s and the C o n stitu tio n o f th e sta te o f M iss iss ip p i or o f th e U n ited S tate s, sh a ll co n stitu te a w ai verther eof

and s hal l be pr ocedural l y bar r ed, butthe courtm ay upon a sh o w ing o f ca u se a n d ac tual p rejud ice g ran t r eli ef from the w aive r. 3 ¶6. O ur cas el aw cl ear l y es t abl i s hes that thi s pr ocedur al bar cannot be appl i ed i n the f ace o f “ e rro rs a ffe c tin g fu n d a m e n tal rig h ts,” b e c a u se su c h a v io la tio n “ is to o sig n ifica n t a depr i vat i on of

l i berty t o be s ubject ed t o a pr ocedur al bar . ” A nd a convi ct i on underan 4
uncons t i tut i onal l y vague s t atut e vi ol at es the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, w hi ch w e f i nd t o be an 5
e rr o r a ffe c tin g a fu n d a m e n tal c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. If the p h ra se “ u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic devi ce” i s vague unde rthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, t hen the S t at e had no pow ert o br i ng an i ndi ctm entchar gi ng a vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 47- 5- 193. T hi s C our thas rul ed that“‘ [ w ] her e the St at e i s pr ecl uded by the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on f r om hal i ng a def endanti nt o courton a c har ge, f eder al l aw r equi r es thata c onvi ct i on on thatchar ge be s et

### Willie v. S tate , 738 So. 2d 217, 219 (Mis s. 1999) ( quoting Men na v. NewY ork , 423 6 

### U.S. 61, 62, 96 S. Ct . 241, 46 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1975) ). See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5 -1 9 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). 7 

### Co mp areMiss . Code Ann. § 47-5- 193 (Re v. 2004) and Mis s. CodeAnn. § 47- 5-193 8 

### (Supp . 20 10 ). The St at e a l s o argu e s that thi s Co ur

t i s proc e dur a l ly b arr e d f r om c on s i de ri ng 9 

### Fulgham’ s va guene ss argum ent , bec aus e sheass erts it for the f ir st timeon appe al . Wefind that Fulgham did rai sethevague nes s argum ent in he r pe ti ti on for

post -c onvic ti on re li ef befo re the trial co urt. Jo nes, 552 So. 2d at 824. 10 

### 4 as i de eve n i f

t he convi ct i on w as ent er ed pur s uantt o a couns el ed pl ea of gui l ty. ’ ” T her ef

or e, 6
w e e x ce p t Fu lgh am ’s claim from the p roc ed u ral ba r. I I . W het her M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 47- 5- 193 i s unconst i t ut i onal l y vague. ¶7. Ful gham ar gues thatthe ver s i on of M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 47- 5- 193 i n f or ce a t the t i m e of hergui l ty pl ea w as fa ci al l y vague, thati s , the vague nes s w as appar entf r om the w or ds of the st atut e. She poi nt s t o the f actthatthe s t atut e has been tw i ce a m ended t o i ncl ude the 7 ter m s “ c e ll p h o n e ” a n d “ c h a rg e r.” F u lg h a m a ss e rts th a t th e sta tu te is v a g u e fo r fa ili n g to 8 def i ne the phr as e “una uthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce. ” Last , Ful gham ar gues thathert r i al couns el w as i neff

ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o advi s e herorthe courtof the s t atut e’ s al l eged vaguene s s . T he St at e al s o cont ends t hatt he st atut e i s notfa ci al l y vague, and al t ernat i vel y, th a ti ti s n o tu n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a s a p p l i e d t o F u l g h a m. 9 ¶8. A s previ ou sl y n oted, an u nco n sti tuti o n all y v ag u e st atute vi olat es the D ue P rocess C l aus e of

the Four t eenth A m endmentt o t he U . S. C ons t i tut i on. B eca us e ther e i s a s tr ong 10 p resu m p ti o n that a leg isl ati v e e n ac tm en t i s v ali d , the p arty c h allen g ing a statute’s

### Ed wa rds v. State , 80 0 S o. 2 d 4 54 , 46 0 (M iss. 20 01 ). 11 

### Id. at 46 1. 12

### Kolender

v. Lawson , 461 U. S. 352, 357, 102 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983) . 13 

### Jordan v. DeGeor

ge , 341 U.S. 223, 231-32, 71 S. Ct. 703, 95 L. Ed. 886 (1951) . 14 

### Christina L ockwo od , Def ining Inde finiteness : Sugges te d Revi si ons to t he Void for 15 

### VaguenessDoct

rine , 8 C ardo zo P ub . L. P ol’y& E thics J. 2 25 (20 10 ). Compare Mayor

& Bd. of Aldermen, Ci

ty of C linto n v. Wel

ch , 888 So. 2d 416 16 

### (Miss. 2 00 4) (d eterminin g statute is facially v agu e), wit h Lew is v. Sta te , 765 So. 2d 493 (Mi ss . 2000) (de te rm ining st at uteis not va gue a s a

ppli ed t o def

endant’ s c onduct). 5 co n sti tuti o n ali ty m u st p ro v e h is or h er c ase b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t. A ll d o u b ts are 11
r es ol ved i n f

avorof the val i di ty of the st atut e. T he U . S. Supr eme C ourthas rul ed that“the 12
v o id -fo r- v a g u e n e ss d o c trin e re q u ire s th a t a p e n a l sta tu te d e fin e th e c rim in a l o ffe n se w ith s uf f i ci entdef

i ni t enes s t hator di nary peopl e ca n under s t and w hat conducti s pr ohi bi t ed and in a m an n er tha t do es n o t enc o u rag e a rbitrary an d discrim inato ry e n forc em en t. ” T h e C o u rt 13 h a s ru led th a t “[t] h e tes t i s w h e th e r th e lan g u a g e co n v e y s s u ffic ien tly d e fin ite w a rn in g a s to th e p ro s c ri b e d c o n d u c t w h e n m e a s u re d b y c o m m o n u n d e rs ta n d in g a n d p ra c tic e s .” 14 ¶ 9 . A s p re v io u sly n o ted , F u lg h a m a ss e rts th e sta tu te is fa c ial ly v a g u e , w h ile th e S tate arg u es th at w e sh o u ld an alyz e w h ethe r th e statute is co n sti tuti o n al as a p p li ed to F u lgh am ’s c o n d u c t. T h e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt’s ju risp ru d e n c e h a s b e e n ra th e r o b sc u re a s to w h e n c o u rts s houl d engage i n an as - appl i ed ana l ys i s ver s us a f aci al anal ys i s w hen r evi ew i ng a s t atut e f or vaguene s s . Fur therm or e, thi s C our thas used e ach a nal ys i s i n s epar at e ca s es w i thout

15 i n s tru c t i o n a s t o a p p l i c a t i o n . S o , we s e tf o r th s o me n o t a b l e d e c i s i o n s b y th e U . S . S u p r e me 16

### Ca sh D istrib. C o. v. N eely , 947 So. 2d 286, 294 ( Mis s. 2007). 17 

### U.S. v. Nat’

l Dai ry Prods. Cor

p. , 372 U. S. 29, 31-32, 83 S. Ct. 594, 9 L. Ed. 2d 561 18 

### (1963) . Id. at 33 ; se e al

so U.S . v. Mazu rie , 419 U. S. 544, 550, 95 S. Ct. 710, 42 L. Ed. 2d 19 

### 706 (1975) (“ It

is wel l e st abl is hed that

va guene ss c hal le nges t o s tatut es whi ch do not involve Fir st Ame ndme nt f

re edom s must

beexamined in theli ght of thefa ct s of

theca seat

hand. ”) Na t’l Da iry Pro ds. , 372 U. S. at 37. 20 

### Vil lage of Hoffman Est

ate s v . Fl ips ide , Hof fman Es tat

es , I nc. , 455 U. S. 489, 102 21 

### S. Ct . 1186, 71 L. Ed. 2d 362 (1982) . Id. at 495, 497. 22 

### 6 C our ton thi s i s s ue and ar e gui ded by the Fi f th Ci r cui t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of i t . W e of

t en def er to th e F ifth C irc u it’s in terp re tatio n o f fe d e ra l law b u t ar e n o t b o u n d b y it. 17 ¶10. I n U

.S . v. N a tio n a l D a iry P ro d u c ts , th e p a rties c h a llen g e d a c rim in a l statu te “ o n its f ace ” f orvaguenes s , w hi l e t he G overnm entar gued t he st atut e w as cons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o the al l eged c onduct . T he C our tf ound thata s t atut e mustnotbe exa m i ned i n t he 18 “a b str ac t” b u t rather “in li g h t of the co n d u ct w ith w h ich a d efe n d an t i s ch arg ed . ” T h e C o u rt 19 not ed thati tc onduct s a f aci al a nal ys i s of

a n a l l egedl y va gue s t atut e i n c as es a r i s i ng undert he Fi r s tA m endment“bec aus e s uch vague nes s may i n i t s el f de t ercons t i tut i onal l y pr ot ect ed and s o c ia lly d e s ir a b le c o n d u c t.” 20 ¶11. I n V

il lage of Hof f m an E s tates , the C our t s et f or th a t es t governi ng a f aci al chal l enge t o a n a l l egedl y va gue s t atut e. T he C our trul ed thatthe “c om pl ai nantm us tdemonstr at e that 21 the law is im p erm issi b ly va g u e in all of it s ap p li ca ti o n s” a n d that “[a] co u rtsh o u ld the refo re exami ne the compl ai nant ’ s conductbef or e anal yzi ng otherhypothet i cal appl i cat i ons of the l aw . ” H ow ever , the C our tno t ed t hat“the mosti m por t antf act oraf f ect i ng the cl ar i ty t hat 22

### Id. at 499. 23 

### Id. 24

### Kolender

v. Lawson , 461 U. S. 352, 103 S. Ct . 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983) . 25 

### Id. at 358, 361- 62. 26 

### Cit y o f C hica go v. Morale

s , 527 U. S. 41, 55, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. 2d 67 27 

### (1999) (plura li ty opinion) . Ro ark & H ard ee LP v. City o f Au stin , 522 F. 3d 533, 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (If the 28 

### statute imp licates a con stitutio nal rig ht, th en the C ourt must ap plya stricter vag uen ess test, i. e. , a fa ci alana lys is .) . 7 t he C on s t i tut i on de mand s of a l a w i s w he the ri tthr e a t e ns t o i nh i bi tthe e xe r c i s e of c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted rig h ts.” If it d o e s, th e n “ a m o re s trin g e n t v a g u e n e ss tes t sh o u ld 23
a p p ly .” 24 ¶12. I n K

olenderv. L aw s on , th e Co u r tu s e d a mo r e s tr i n g e n tv a g u e n e s s t e s tt o s tr i k e d o wn an an ti loite ri n g statu te as b eing su b ject t o arb itrary en forc em en t. In th at ca se, th e C o u rt 25 found that a f

aci al analysi s w as appropri at e, because the st atute po t enti al l y sup press ed F i rs t A m endmentl i bert i es and i m pl i cat ed the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof f r eedom of

m ovement . A nd

26 i n Cit y of Chi cago v. Mor ales , t he C our tagai n us ed a f aci al anal ys i s and s truck dow n an ant i l oi t er i ng ordi nance as vague, r eas oni ng that : ( 1) the s t atut e cont ai ned no m ens r ea el em ent, (2) the st atute i nfr i n g ed o n a co nst i tuti on al l y p rot ect ed ri gh t , and (3) vag uen ess p e r me a t e d th e t e x to f

th e l a w. 27 ¶ 1 3 . T h e F ifth C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s in terp re ted th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s p re c e d e n t to r equi r e the f

ol l ow i ng s t eps i n a vague nes s chal l enge: 1. T he courtm us tcons i derw hether th e sta tu te a ffe c ts a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t. 2 . If th e sta tu te im p lica tes n o c o n stitu tio n a lly 28

### Id. at 551. 29

### Id. at 553. 30

### Id. at n.21 ( quoting U.S. v. Gaudreau , 860 F. 2d 357, 359 ( 10th Cir. 1988)) . 31 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 47-5- 193 (Re v. 2004) (e mpha si s a dded) . 32 

### 8 p ro tec ted rig h t, th e c o u rt s h o u ld c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e sta tu te is im p e rm iss ib ly v a g u e in a ll o f its a p p lica tio n s, a p p ly in g th e s tatu te to th e c o m p lain a n t’s c o n d u c t bef or e cons i der i ng any hypothet i cal s cena r i os . I n appl yi ng the s t atut e t o the f act s a tha nd, the courtmustcons i der 29
w hetherthe compl ai nanthad not i ce of w hatconducti s pr ohi bi t ed and w hetherl aw enf or cementhad def

i ni t e st andar ds t o avoi d arbi tr ary enf or cement . “‘ T he s ame f ace t s of 30 a st atute u su all y rai se conc erns of bo th fai r not i ce and adeq uate enfor cem ent s t and ards. H en ce the a n alys is of thes e tw o co n ce rns ten d s to o v erlap . ’” 31 ¶ 1 4 . W e a g re e w ith th e F ifth C irc u it’s in terp re tatio n o f th e v a g u e n e ss d o c trin e a n d a p p ly i tt o thi s c as e. A tthe t i m e of Ful gham’s of

f ens e, M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 47 -5- 193 p ro v id e d th a t: It is u n law fu l fo r a n y o ffic e r o r e m p lo y e e o f th e d e p a rtm e n t, or a n y c o u n ty s her i f f’ s depart m ent , of

any pr i vat e corr ect i onal f aci l i ty i n thi s s t at e i n w hi ch of f ender s ar e conf

i ned orf orany otherper s on t o f urni s h, att empt to f

urni s h, oras s i s ti n f

urni s hi ng to any of

f enderconf

i ned i n thi s s t at e any w eapon, d e a d ly w e a p o n , unauthor iz ed electr oni c dev i ce o r c o n tra b a n d item . It i s unl aw f ul f orany per s on t o t ake, att empt t o t ake, oras s i s ti n t aki ng any w e a p o n , u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic d e v ice o r c o n tra b a n d item o n p ro p e rty bel ongi ng t o the depa r t m entw hi ch i s occupi ed orus ed by of f ender s , e xceptas a u th o r i z e d b y l a w. 32 W e n o te th a t th e sta tu te in e ffe c t in 2 0 0 4 c o n tain e d n o d e fin iti o n fo r “ u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic devi ce. ”

### Ro ark , 522 F. 3d at 553. 33 

### We not e that

Jus ti ceKit che ns i s c orr ec t in his as se rtion t hat thest at utedoes not 34 

### spe ci fy who determin es wh ether anelectron ic dev ice is “un auth orized .” But the o nly reason able interpretatio n is th at the entity h avin g custo dyof the inmate determines what is “un auth orized .” 9 ¶ 1 5 . F irst, w e m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e s tatu te a ffe c ts a c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted rig h t. F u lg h a m d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e sta tu te a ff e c ts a n y c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t, an d w e fin d th a t it does not . T her ef

or e, w e appl y the s t atut e t o Ful gham’s conductt o det erm i ne w hethers he had not i ce of w hatconductw as pr ohi bi t ed and w hetherl aw enf or cementhad def

i ni t e s t andar ds t o avoi d arbi tr ary enf

or cement . T hi s i nqui ry i nvol ves a f actual de t erm i nat i on f

orthe tr i al 33
court , w hi ch di d nothol d a hea r i ng on Ful gham’s pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef . A nd t he pl ea di al ogue i n thi s cas e pr ovi des no m or e i nf or m at i on than w hati s c ont ai ned i n the bar ebones i ndi ctm ent . T he r ecor d bef or e us i s s i l entas t o w hatw as orw as not“author i zed” and
w hat , i f any, not i ce w as gi ven t o Ful gham. T her ef or e, w e r emand f

oran evi dent i ary hear i ng f orthe courtt o det erm i ne ( 1) w hetherFul gham had not i ce thata ce l l phone and cha r ger co n sti tuted an “e lectron ic de v ice,”an d if so , (2) w h eth e r s h e h a d n o ti ce that they w ere “u n au tho ri ze d , ” an d (3) w h ethe r law e n forc em en t ha d d efinit e stan d ard s to a v o id arb itrary 34
en forc em en t. T h ese q u esti o n s sim p ly c an n o t be a n sw ere d b ase d o n the s p arse rec o rd b efo re us. CO NC L US I ON ¶16. T hi s Courtr emands f ora n e vi dent i ary he ar i ng on ( 1) w hetherFul gham had not i ce thata cel l phone and cha r gercons t i tut ed an “ el ectr oni c devi ce, ”and i f s o, ( 2) w hethers he had not i ce tha tthe y wer e “ un a utho r i z e d, ” a nd( 3) w he the rl aw enf or cementhad def

i ni t e s t andar ds

### Fulgh am w as inc arce rate d in Augus t of 2004 on a c harge of

ca pit almurder . She 35 

### was subs eque ntly convi ct ed and se nte nce d to de ath. 10 t o avoi d arbi tr ary enf

or cement . T hi s i nqui ry w i l l a l l ow the tr i al c our tt o det erm i ne w hether the s t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o F ul gham’s conductand w hetherr el i ef s houl d be g ra n te d . ¶ 1 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , A N D D I C K I N SO N , J. , C O N C U R . G R A V ES, P . J . , DI S S E N T S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y R AN DO L P H, CHANDL ER AN D P I ER CE , J J . KI TC HENS , J . , CONC URS I N P ART AN D DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. GR AV E S , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 1 8 . “ Va g u e n e s s c h a l l e n g e s t o s t a tu t e s wh i c h d o n o t i n v o l v e F i r s t Ame n d me n tf r e e d o ms m us tbe e xami ned i n l i ghtof the f act s of the ca s e athand. ” U

.S . v. Ma zu rie , 419 U . S. 544, 5 5 0 , 9 5 S . C t. 7 1 0 , 4 2 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 6 (1 9 7 5 ). In lig h t o f th e fa c ts h e re in , I fin d th a t th e sta tu te u n d e r w h ic h F u lg h a m w a s p ro s e c u te d is v a lid a n d , th e re fo re , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. ¶1 9 . A t th e ti m e F u lgh am w as ca u g h t furn ishing a ce ll p h o n e an d ce ll -ph o n e ch arg er to anotheri nm at e, s he t oo w as a n i nm at e. W hi l e an i nm at e does notl os e al l r i ght s upon bei ng 35 i ncarcerat ed, i ncarcerat i on necessari l y en t ai l s l i m i t at i on s on the ri gh tof i nm at es t o p ossess p ro p e rt y in p ri s o n . H

a rr is v . Fo rs

y th , 735 F. 2d 1235 ( 11th C i r . 1984) . O ne s uch l i m i t at i on i s s etf or th i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 47- 5- 193, w hi ch pr ovi ded: It is u n law fu l fo r a n y o ffic e r o r e m p lo y e e o f th e d e p a rtm e n t, or a n y c o u n ty s her i f f’ s depart m ent , orany pr i vat e corr ect i onal f aci l i ty i n thi s s t at e i n w hi ch off ender s ar e conf

i ned orf orany otherper s on t o f urni s h, att empt t o f

urni s h, oras s i s ti n f

urni s hi ng t o any of

f enderconf

i ned i n thi s st at e any w eapon, d e a d ly w e a p o n , u n a u th o ri z e d e lec tro n ic d e v ise o r c o n tra b a n d item . It i s unl aw f ul f orany per s on t o t ake, att empt t o t ake, oras s i s ti n t aking any

### Th is statute h as since b een rev ised. SeeMis s. Code Ann. § 45-5- 193 (Supp. 2010). 36 

### 11 w eapon, deadl y w eapon, unauthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce orcont r aband i t em on property b el on ging t o the dep artm ent w hich i s occu pied or u sed b y o ff end ers , e x c e p t a s a u th o ri z e d b y la w . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5-1 9 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). 36 ¶20. Ful gham chal l enges thi s s t atute as being un con st i tuti on al l y v agu e. S pecif i cal l y, Ful gham ar gues thatthe phr as e “una uthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce” i s notde f i ned i n the s t atut e, a n d th e re fo re th e sta tu te f a ils a d e q u a tely to p ro v id e fa ir n o tice o f th e c o n d u c t th a t is pr ohi bi t ed. T he m aj or i ty cor r ect l y poi nt s outthat“[ t ] he voi d- f or - vaguene s s doctr i ne r equi r es that a p en al st atute d efine the c ri m inal o ffen se w ith su ffi cien t definit en ess th at ord inary peopl e ca n under s t and w hatconducti s prohi bi t ed and i n a m annerthatdoes notencour age arbi tr ary a nd di s cr i m i nat ory enf or cement . ” K

olenderv. L aw s on , 46 1 U. S. 35 2, 35 7, 10 3 S. C t. 18 5 5 , 7 5 L . E d . 2 d 9 0 3 (1 9 8 3 ). In a p p ly in g th is te st to th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te, lo g ic t el l s us that a “cel l ph on e” and “cel l -phon e charger” are “unau tho ri zed electroni c dev i ces” fo r i n m a te u s e . ¶21. W hi l e “una uthor i zed e l ectr oni c dev i ce” is n ot speci fi cal l y def i ned i n the s t atut e, o rd in a ry p e o p le c a n u n d e rsta n d th a t a c e ll p h o n e a n d c e ll-p h o n e c h a rg e r a re e lec tro n ic d e v ice s. F u rth e r, as in c a rc e ra tio n n e c e ss a rily e n tails lim ita tio n s o n a n in m a te’ s rig h t to p o ss e ss p ro p e rty , “u n a u th o riz e d ” n e c e ss a rily w o u ld in c lu d e a n y th in g th a t is n o t sp e c ifica lly a u th o ri z e d . H

a rr is , 7 3 5 F . 2 d 1 2 3 5 . In lig h t o f th e fa c ts in th is c a se , itw o u ld b e ill o g ica l to re a so n th a t th e w o rd “ u n a u th o riz e d ” d o e s n o t en c o m p a ss th e m e a n in g “ n o t sp e c ifica lly

### 12

a u th o riz e d .” T h u s, th e p h ra se “ u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic d e v ice ,” im p lies th a t an y e lec tro n ic devi ce thati s nots peci f i cal l y author i zed f

ori nm at e us e i s pr ohi bi t ed. ¶ 2 2 . In th is c a se , F u lg h a m h a s p ro v id e d n o e v id e n c e th a t s h e w a s e v e r a u th o riz e d to pos s es s , us e, orf

urni s h t o another , a ce l l phone and c el l - phone cha r gerw hi l e i n pr i s on. I n my vi ew , the phr as e “una uthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce, ” means thatany el ectr oni c devi ce not s peci f i cal l y author i zed f

ori nm at e us e i s pr ohi bi t ed. A ccor di ngl y, I f i nd M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 47- 5- 193 ( R ev. 2004) , t o be cons t i tut i onal and w oul d af f i r m Ful gham’s gui l ty pl ea. RANDOL P H, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. K IT C H E N S , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶2 3 . I ag re e th a t w e s h o u ld re v e rse th e tria l ju d g e’s d en ial o f po st- co n v ict ion reli ef. H ow ever , beca us e the s t atut e i s i r r epar abl y vague unde rany appl i cat i on, I w oul d gr ant Ful gham’s pet i t i on f

or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef and r ever s e herconvi ct i on on the counts he c h a llen g e s. F u lg h a m p re se n ts a q u e stio n o f la w th a t ca n an d sh o u ld b e d e c id e d b y th is C o u rt; th e re fo re , I r e s p e c tf

u lly c o n c u r i n p a rt a n d d is s e n t in p a rt . ¶ 2 4 . It is tru e th a t th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s sa id th a t “ v a g u e n e ss c h a llen g e s to s t atut es w hi ch do noti nvol ve Fi r s tA m endmentf r eedoms m us tbe exami ned i n the l i ghtof the f act s of the ca s e athand. ” U

.S . v. Ma zu rie , 419 U . S. 544, 550, 95 S. C t . 710, 42 L . E d. 2d 706 ( 1975) . H ow ever , w hen a s t atut e i s s o va gue thati tpr ovi des no s t andar d atal l , t he d e fe n d a n t’s c o n d u c t, i n th e a b se n c e o f a c lea rly d e fin e d a n d u n d e rsta n d a b le s tan d a rd , is im m a te ri a l. U. S. v. Wil lia ms , 5 5 3 U . S . 2 8 5 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 8 3 0 , 1 7 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 5 0 (20 0 8 ). T hus , an as - appl i ed ana l ys i s i s unne ces s ary, be caus e “[ i ] f on i t s f ace the cha l l enged pr ovi s i on

### 13

i s r epugnantt o the due pr oces s cl aus e, s peci f i cat i on of

de t ai l s of

the of f ens e i nt ended t o be char ged w oul d nots erve t o val i dat e i t . ” L anzetta v. N ew Jers ey , 30 6 U. S. 45 1, 45 3, 59 S. C t. 6 1 8 , 8 3 L . E d . 8 8 8 (19 3 9 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶25. T he M i s s i ssi pp i st at ute und er w hich F ulgham w as pr os ecut ed, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 4 7 -5 -1 9 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ), f a ils to c o m p ly w ith d u e p r o c e s s r e q u ir e m e n ts . See U . S. C ons t . amend. X I V ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 14. T he phr as e i n ques t i on, “unautho ri zed el ectr oni c devi ce, ” i s s o i nher ent l y i ndet erm i nat e thati tprovi des nei therm i ni m um s t andar ds of enf or cementnor“def

i ni t e w arning as t o the pr os cr i bed conduc t . ” N i chol s v. Cit y of G u l fport , 589 So. 2d 1280, 1282 (M i s s . 1991) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H undr eds of thous ands o f p ro d u c ts c a n b e d e sc rib e d a s “ e lec tro n ic d e v ice s,” a n d in th is in sta n c e th e ter m is s t a tu t o r i l y l i mi t e d o n l y b y th e a d j e c t i v e “ u n a u th o r i z e d . ” T h e q u e s t i o n th a tl o g i c a l l y f o l l o ws i s , of cour s e, “U nauthor i zed by w hom ?” The st atut e l eave s the court s , and w or s e, the publ i c, t o w onderw ho i s ves t ed w i th the author i ty t o decl ar e a de vi ce “ unauthor i zed. ” A n “of f ender conf i ned i n thi s s t at e” m ay be s ubj ectt o a pl ethor a of author i t i es , i ncl udi ng the court s , t he l egi s l atur e, l ocal governm ent s , the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons , s her i f

f s , and pr i vat e corr ect i onal ent erpr i s es , t o name som e o f them. I n addi t i on, f eder al pr i s oner s m ay be t empora r i l y conf

i ned i n M i s s i s s i ppi j ai l s , a nd s om e of ourc orr ect i onal f

aci l i t i es a r e run by pr i vat e ent i t i es . W i thouts peci f i c l egi s l at i ve gui dance , thi s C our tcannotdi vi ne under
w h o se a u th o rity a n in m a te’ s p o ss e ss io n o f th e se n o n d e sc rip t an d m u lti tu d in o u s d e v ice s is
r egul at ed, and “[ w ] e ar e notaboutthe bus i nes s of l egi s l at i ng. ” Ch a m

p lu v ierv. S ta te , 942 S o. 2d 14 5, 154 ( M i ss. 20 06 ). T he ex trem el y b road t erm “el ect roni c dev i ces” can en com pass ev ery thing from a se co n d h an d toas ter to th e H u b b le Sp ac e T elesc o p e. S u rely o u r l eg isl ature

### 14

c a n b e m o re s p e c if

ic . S o c a n w e . B u t th a t is n o t o u r p ro v in c e ; i t is t h e l e g is la tu re ’s . See M iss. C o n st. art. 1 , § § 1 , 2 (pro v iding for se p ara ti o n o f go v ern m en tal p o w ers). ¶26. T he pl ur al i ty hol ds that “the onl y r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on i s that the ent i ty hav i ng cus t ody of

the i nm at e det erm i nes w hati s ‘ unauthor i zed. ’ ” Pl ur. O p. n. 34. H ow ever , even i f the s t atut e coul d be r ead t o m ean thatthe O kt i bbeha Count y Sher i f f’ s D epart m entand/ or the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i ons ha ve been gi ven the author i ty t o def i ne cr i m i nal conduct , thi s w oul d const i tut e an uncons t i tut i onal del egat i on of l egi s l at i ve author i ty. “[ T ] he author i ty t o def

i ne cr i m es and pr ovi de the puni s hm entther ef ori s ves t ed exc l us i vel y i n t he L egi s l a tur e , a nd i tmay n otd e l e ga t e tha tp owere xp r e s s l y orb y i mpl i c a t i on n ormay a n admi ni s tr at i ve agenc y e nl ar ge the cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty of the s t atut e. ” S ta te v . R u ss e ll , 358 So. 2d 409, 411- 12 ( M i s s . 1978) ( ci t i ng Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 3 0 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 4 (M is s . 1 9 7 4 )) . See a l so M i s s . C ons t . art . 4, § 33 ( ves t i ng l egi s l at i ve pow eri n the l egi s l atur e) ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 1, §§ 1 -2 (p rov iding sep ara ti o n of po w ers). T h e O k ti b b eh a C o u n ty S h eriff’s D ep artm en t i s p art o f t h e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h o f g o v e rn m e n t, w h ic h c o n s titu tio n a lly c a n n o t d e fi n e s ta te c ri m e s . ¶ 2 7 . U n d e n iab ly , itis a p p ro p ria te th a t th e d u ly e lec ted o r ap p o inted au tho ri ti es w h o o p e ra te pr i s ons a nd j ai l s be pe r m i t t ed t o pr om ul gat e and enf or ce r eas onabl e r es tr i ct i ons – cons i s t ent w i th appl i cabl e l aw and co nsi der at i ons of s af ety, s ecur i ty, hygi ene, and hea l th – upon t he ki nds of thi ngs thatcannotbe pos s es s ed by i ncar cer at ed persons, or pr ovi ded t o them by other s. W hat tho se aut ho ri t i es cann o t do , how ever, i s ma ke i ta c r i me f oran i ncar cer at ed p e rso n to p o ss e ss a p a rticu lar thin g , o r fo r an o th e r p e rso n to m a k e su c h a th in g a v a ilab le to a n in c a rc e ra te d p e rs o n . T o c o n fe r u p o n a sh e riff o r o th e r p e a c e o ffic e r, o r u p o n a sta te c o rr e c tio n s o ff

ic ia l, o r a n y o th e r p e rs o n o r g ro u p , the p ow er t o cri m i na l ize the pos s es s i on or

### 15

pr ovi s i on of

a c ert ai n t hi ng, orki nd of thi ng, by al l ow i ng hi m orthem t o des i gnat e thatt hi ng as unauthor iz ed , i s , w i thoutquest i on, an unconst i tut i onal del egat i on of a pow erthatbel ongs so lel y to the legislatu re. T h e ti m e-h o n o red co n sti tuti o n al do ctri n e o f sep ara ti o n o f po w ers c le a rl y p ro s c ri b e s s u c h a d e le g a tio n o f a u th o ri ty . M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 1 , § § 1 -2 . ¶ 2 8 . T h e p lu ra lity rem a n d s fo r an e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g , b u t th e re c a n b e n o e x trin sic evi dence thatw oul d, orcan, cur e the st atut ory def ect . O urconce rn i s w i th the l anguage of the s t atut e i n i s s ue, M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 47- 5- 193 ( R ev. 2004) . “[ T ] he t es ti s w hether the language [ of

the s t atut e i n ques t i on] conveys s uf f i ci ent l y defi nit e w ar ni ng as t o t he pr os cr i bed conduc t , ” Jor dan v. D e G eor ge , 341 U . S. 223, 231, 71 S. C t . 703, 95 L . E d. 886 ( 1951) (e m phas i s added) , notw hethersome extr i ns i c sour ce c oul d have pr ovi ded s uf f i ci ent not i ce t o s at i s f

y due pr oces s of

l aw . Ful gham i s pr es um ed t o be on n oti ce o f the l anguage o f t h e s ta tu te , n o t th e ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s g o v e rn in g c e rt a in c o rr e c tio n a l f a c iliti e s . See McN e e ly v . S ta te , 277 So. 2d 435, 437 ( M i s s . 1973) ( “al l per s ons ar e pr es um ed t o know t he l aw ”) . T her ef

or e, even i f

the St at e w er e t o pr oduce s om e documentf r om the O kt i bbeha C ounty Sher i f

f’ s D epart m entw hi ch pr ohi bi t ed cel l phone s and cha r ger s , i tcoul d nots erve to fil l i n the g a p s le ft b y the leg isla tu re o r p ro v id e law en fo rc e m e n t au th o rities w ith “ d e fin ite s ta n d a rd s to a v o id a rb itr a ry e n fo rc e m e n t.” P lu r. O p . a t ¶ 1 . ¶29. N ot abl y, a l though of no cons equenc e t o the r es ol ut i on of the pr es entc as e, i n 2006 and 2008 t he l e gi s l a tur e a mend e d Se c t i on 47 - 5- 19 3 s pe c i f i c a l l y t o a dd t o tha ts t a tut e ’ s l i s tof fo rb id d e n ite m s , in te ra lia , the very k i nd s of thi ng s t he prosecuti on co ntended in this case came undert he um brel l a of “unauthor i zed e l ectr oni c devi ce[ s ] ” atthe t i m e of the al l eged o ffe n se , w h ich p re d a ted e ith e r o f th e a m e n d m e n ts. In a d d iti o n to u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic

### 16

d ev i ces, w h ich re m a in sta tu to rily u n d e fin e d in M iss iss ip p i, the a mend e d c od e s e c t i on speci fi es “. . . cel l ph on e, or an y o f i t s com po nen t s or access ori es t o incl ud e . . . chargers .

. . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5-1 9 3 (S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶30. T he ver s i on of the s t atut e i n ef f ect at the t i m e al l eged i n the i ndi ctm ent – A ugus t16, 20 04 – d i d n ot i nclude t he w ords cel lphone o r char ger . W hatthe s t atut e di d pr ovi de att hat t i m e, i n p ert i nen tpart , w as: It is u n law fu l f

o r a n y . . . p e rso n to fu rn ish , atte m p t to fu rn ish , o r a ss ist in f urni s hi ng t o a ny of

f enderc onf

i ned i n thi s s t at e any . . . un aut hor i zed e le c tr o n ic d e v ic e . . . . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47- 5- 193 ( R ev. 2004) . T he cha r ge l ai d agai nstF ulgham i n the i ndi ctm ent , i n pert i nentpart , aver s thats he: di d unl aw f

ul l y, w i l f ul l y, a ndf

e l oni ous l y, f

urni s h t o an i nm at e of

the O kt i bbeha C ounty j ai l an unauthor i zed el ectr oni c devi ce, t o- w i t : a c el l ul art el ephone a nd char ger , contr ary t o the f or m of the s t atut es i n s uch ca s es m ade a nd pr ovi ded

. . . . ¶ 3 1 . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 7 -5 -1 9 3 is c ited in th e c a p tio n a t th e to p o f th e in d ictm e n t, butnoti n the f

or m al , char gi ng por t i on of the docum ent r et urned by t he gr and j ury. T he in d ictm e n t im p ro p e rly ex c e e d s th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te b y e lab o ra tin g , as th e sta tu te d id
n o td o a tth a tt i me – a n d , s tr i c t l y s p e a k i n g , d o e s n o td o n o w – th a tth e t e r m unauthor iz ed el ectr oni c dev i ce can mean “a cel l ul art el ephone a nd char ger . ” S i gni f i cant l y, a l i t er al cons truct i on of

the s t atut e i n i t s pr es entf or m r evea l s thatthe l egi s l atur e has made a di s t i nct i on betw een unauthor iz ed electr oni c dev i ce and cel lphone and cha rgers . M i s s . C ode A n n . § 4 7 -5-1 9 3 (S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ).

### 17

¶ 32 . If the am end m ents to t he st atute had b een en act ed an d h ad taken eff ectpri or t o A ug ust 16, 2004, the i ndi ctm entr eturned aga i ns tFul gham on Jul y 25, 2005, coul d be r ead t o have su ffic ien tly c h a rg e d h e r w ith h a v in g u n law fu lly fu rn ish e d sta tu to rily p ro h ib ited a rticle s to a n in m a te o f th e O k tib b e h a C o u n ty jail. T h e d ra fte r o f th e in d ictm e n t atte m p ted to su p p ly
w h a t th e le g isla tu re h a d o m itt e d fr o m its o rig in a l en a c tm e n t, bu t d id p ro v id e b y m e a n s o f its 2006 and 2008 amendm ent s : s peci f i ci ty w i th r egar d t o exac t l y w hatki nds of thi ngs cannot l aw f ul l y be t aken i nt o cer t ai n pl ace s of i m pr i s onm ent . B ut , al as , nei therdr af t er s of in d ictm e n ts n o r a p p e llate c o u rts p o ss e ss th e c o n stitu tio n a l au th o rity to fill i n th e g a p s in s t a tut e s tha ta r e ho pe l e s s l y a f f l i c t e d b y u nc on s t i tut i on a l va gu e ne s s . Tha ti s a l e gi s l at i ve fun cti o n , n o t a pro sec u to ria l fu n cti o n an d n o t a j u d ici al on e. T h e M issi ssipp i L eg isl ature r i ght l y undert ook t hatfunc t i on by i t s r emed i al amendm ent s of Sect i on 47- 5- 193 i n 2006 and 2 0 0 8 . T h o u g h the s tatu te st o o d in n ee d o f rep air on A u g u st 16 , 2 0 0 4 , the d ate o f F u lgh am ’s al l eged vi ol at i on of

i t , a nd though the dr af

t erof the i ndi ctm entpr es ci ent l y f or es aw w hatt he l egi s l atur e l at erw ould deter m i ne the s t atut e o u g h t to s ay, f r om a cons t i tut i onal s t andpoi nt it w a s h o p e le s s ly v a g u e w h e n th e S ta te s o u g h t to in v o k e it a g a in s t F u lg h a m . ¶33. Fi nal l y, fr om the plai n l ang uag e o f t he st atut e, i ti s ques t i onabl e w hetheri t even appl i es t o Ful gham’s a l l eged conduct . Ful gham w as i ndi ct ed f or“ f urni s h[ i ng] t o an in m a te of the O kt i bbeha Count y j ai l an unauthor i zed e l ect roni c devi ce. ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T he s t atut e cl ear l y r equi r es thatthe r eci pi entbe “a ny of f enderconf

i ned i n t hi s st at e. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47- 5- 193 ( emphasi s added) . A n of f enderi s def

i ned as “any pe r s on convi ct ed o f a c ri m e o r o ff

e n s e u n d e r t h e la w s a n d o rd in a n c e s o f t h e s ta te a n d its p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n s .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5 -4 (c ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A n d , tho u g h n o t sp e c ifica lly

### 18

appl i cabl e t o Sect i on 47- 5- 193, the code el s ew her e def i nes an i nm at e as “any pe r s on i ncar cer at ed w i thi n any s t at e corr ect i onal f aci l i ty. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 47- 5- 539 ( c) ( R ev. 20 04 ). L i kew i se, M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 47 -5- 70 3(a) (R ev. 20 04 ) def i nes an inm at e as [ E ] very per s on w ho atthe t i m e of the d ecl ar at i on of

a pr i s on s ys t em o v erc row d ing stat e o f em erg en cy , or at an y ti m e d u ri n g the c o n ti n u ati o n o f a s t at e of emer gency, i s i ncar cer at ed by the M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m entof C orr ect i ons a s a r es ul tof a c om m i t m entt o the depa r t m ent , i ncl udi ng per s ons comm i t t ed t o the depa r t m entand i ncar cer at ed i n l ocal or county j ai l s or other fa c iliti e s a u th o ri z e d to h o u s e s ta te in m a te s . M o re o v e r, th e In ter sta te C o rre c tio n s C o m p a c t d e fin e s a n in m a te a s “ a m a le o r fe m a le of f enderw ho i s comm i t t ed, unders ent ence t o orconf i ned i n, a penal or c orr ect i onal in s titu tio n .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 7 -5 -1 3 5 1 (d ) ( S u p p . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶34. C l ear l y, ther e i s a s i gni f i cant di s t i nct i on betw een an i nm at e and an of f ender , and the per s on t o w hom Ful gham al l egedl y furni s hed t he “unauthor i zed el ectr oni c devi ces ” m ay not have been an “of

f ender . ” M any peopl e w ho ha ve notbe en convi ct ed of a c r i m e m ay be in c a rc e ra ted in a c o u n ty jail, e.g ., d e tain e e s a w a iti n g trial, p e rso n s a w a itin g a c iv il comm i t m enthe ar i ng, a nd pe r s ons i ncar cer at ed f orci vi l cont empt . T hus , on r emand, the tr i al courts houl d al s o det erm i ne w hethert he per s on t o w hom Ful gham furni s hed the ce l l phone a n d c h a rg e r w a s a n “ o ff e n d e r,” a s d e fi n e d b y M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 7 -5 -4 . ¶35. Y et , as expl ai ned above, no evi dent i ary hear i ng coul d pos s i bl y s ave thi s convi ct i on. T h e p h ra se “ u n a u th o riz e d e lec tro n ic d e v ice ” is s o a m b ig u o u s th a t itc a n n o t b e sa id c lea rly to d e fin e c rim in a l co n d u c t. B e c a u se d u e p ro c e ss o f la w re q u ire s th a t p o rtio n o f th e sta tu te in q u esti o n b e d ec lared v o id fo r i ts va g u en ess, I w o u ld rev erse an d ren d er.