Opinion ID: 4550731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Merits of MDOC’s Decision

Text: ¶8. Parker’s two 2006 cocaine sale sentences are not the impediment here—nor is his subsequent offender designation. Indeed, MDOC officials explained during the ARP process that Parker is parole eligible for both of his 2006 sentences. What prevents Parker from receiving parole is his habitual offender status, which requires he serve his 2009 mandatory 5 eight year sentence—a sentence he has not yet completed. ¶9. Parker received three consecutive sentences for felony drug convictions under Section 41-29-139. His 2006 cocaine sale sentences are straightforward—twenty and fourteen years. See Parker v. State, 5 So. 3d 458 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). When convicted in 2006, Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3 required Parker to serve one quarter of each 2006 sentence and observe the penitentiary’s rules to be parole eligible. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3 (Supp. 2005). And he did that. Still, in years past, even though Parker had served a quarter of each sentence, his subsequent offender status under Section 41-29-147 for the 2009 cocaine possession would have precluded his parole. But recently, House Bill 387 removed this bar. ¶10. On July 1, 2018, House Bill 387 (the Act) became law. See H.B. 387, Reg. Sess., 2018 Miss. Laws ch. 416, § 5. Among its other provisions, the Act amended Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3(1)(f). Before the Act, the Section stated that defendants convicted of “felonies with enhanced penalties” were not eligible for parole. Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7- 3(1)(f) (Rev. 2015). But the revised statute now has an exception for penalty enhancements under Section 41-29-147. See Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3(1)(f) (Supp. 2019). The Act specifically provides that “an offender who receives an enhanced penalty under the provisions of Section 41-29-147 for such possession, shall be eligible for parole.” Id. ¶11. Passage of the Act—and its effect on subsequent offenders—prompted Parker to seek a parole date through the ARP process. Parker is correct that his subsequent offender status no longer precludes MDOC from setting a parole date. But what the Act did not do is remove the parole prohibition for habitual offenders. Indeed, at the very beginning of 6 Section 47-7-3, it states “[n]o prisoner convicted as a confirmed and habitual criminal under the provisions of Section[] 99-19-81 . . . shall be eligible for parole.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-3(1)(a) (Supp. 2019). The Act did not change this. And Section 99-19-81 still makes clear that habitual offenders must serve their sentence without possibility of suspension, reduction, parole, or probation. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (Supp. 2019). Because Parker was sentenced as a habitual offender and has not yet completed his 2009 mandatory eight year cocaine possession sentence, MDOC properly denied him a parole date.