 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brown v. Mississippi Department of Corrections12/14/2004
lassification committee. The classification committee had no jurisdiction over his sentence. Once the classification committee determined that Brown had violated the terms of ISP and removed him from the program, it was required to enforce the trial judge's original sentencing order.
. Brown's due process rights were not violated by his removal from ISP. When Brown was taken off house arrest and placed in MDOC's custody, he merely experienced a change in his housing assignment and classification, which does not require a hearing since it does not involve a liberty interest. See Lewis v. State, 761 So. 2d 922, 923 ( 3-4) (MisS.Ct. App. 2000).
. Accordingly, there is no merit to this issue.
II. Whether Mississippi Department of Corrections is in Violation of Double Jeopardy by Issuing Two Different Sentences
. Brown contends that he was unconstitutionally subjected to double jeopardy when he was taken off house arrest and sent to jail to serve the remainder of his one year and also had his entire ten year sentence imposed.
. Brown's removal from the ISP and reclassification into the general prison population, as well as the imposition of his original sentence were administrative, not criminal proceedings. Administrative proceedings do not invoke the double jeopardy clause, Moore v. State, 461 So. 2d 768, 770 (Miss. 1984), and as such Brown was not unconstitutionally subjected to double jeopardy. Brown was not tried on the merits when the classification committee carried out the original ten year sentencing order of the court. Simply stated, "double jeopardy protections do not apply to suspension revocation hearings." McBride v. Sparkman, 860 So. 2d 1237, 1240 ( 9) (MisS.Ct. App. 2003).
. Brown, in his reply brief, alleges that MDOC is in error by not crediting his nine months served under house arrest towards his ten year sentence. MDOC argues that since Brown failed to successfully complete one year in the ISP, he must serve out his entire ten year sentence. However, MDOC does not address the issue of Brown receiving credit for the nine months he served while under house arrest except to acknowledge that Brown raised the issue in his complaint to the circuit court. Nothing in the record indicates that Brown will not or did not receive credit for the nine months except for Brown's allegation, he may very well have received credit for the nine months.
. Whether participating in the ISP or confined in a correctional facility, Brown was confined as a prisoner under the jurisdiction of the MDOC. See Lewis, 761 So. 2d at 923 ( 15). Therefore, Brown is entitled to receive credit for the time spent in the intensive supervision program.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SUNFLOWER COUNTY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY.
BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
|