Amendment Notes —

The 2018 amendment inserted “subject to the provisions of Section 99-19-20.1” in the first sentence and at the beginning of the second sentence; substituted “one (1) year” for “two (2) years” at the end of the last sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Duty of sheriff relative to prisoners, see §§19-25-63 et seq.

Credit allowed for labor of convicts, see §47-1-47.

Sentence upon conviction for vagrancy, see §97-35-41.

Sentence upon two or more convictions, see §99-19-21.

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Removal of prisoner.

3. Length of confinement.

1. In general.

Code sections associated with section containing provision, stricken by Amendatory Act, that no convict shall be credited with wages while in jail and not at work held to entitle convict to credit of $1 on his fine and costs for each day spent in jail when ready, able, and willing to work, regardless of title of amendatory act, “An Act to amend [such section] so as to credit convicts with time served in jail.” Ex parte Jackson, 177 Miss. 509, 171 So. 545, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 138 (Miss. 1937).

Duplicate detention warrant held sufficient authority for convict’s detention. Ex parte Moody, 121 Miss. 313, 83 So. 529, 1919 Miss. LEXIS 165 (Miss. 1919).

Court’s failure to comply with statute does not relieve accused from liability for imprisonment on failure to pay fine. Buck v. State, 103 Miss. 276, 60 So. 321, 1912 Miss. LEXIS 170 (Miss. 1912).

This section [Code 1942, § 7899], in providing for imprisonment until payment of the cost of prosecution, does not violate a constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt. Ex parte McInnis, 98 Miss. 773, 54 So. 260, 1910 Miss. LEXIS 123 (Miss. 1910).

2. Removal of prisoner.

Sheriff had no authority to remove prisoner sentenced to imprisonment in county jail where offense was committed to jail of nonadjoining county. Ex parte Buck, 104 Miss. 661, 61 So. 651, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 67 (Miss. 1913).

3. Length of confinement.

Under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, an indigent, convicted in a state court and sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment specified by statute and payment of a fine and court costs, the judgment also directing, pursuant to statute, that if the defendant was in default of the monetary payment at the expiration of his prison term, he should remain in jail to “work off” the fine at the statutory rate, may not be continued in confinement beyond the maximum term specified by statute because of his failure to satisfy the monetary provisions of the sentence, either with regard to the fine or with regard to the costs. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 2018, 26 L. Ed. 2d 586, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 8 (U.S. 1970).

Although incarceration of indigent for involuntary failure to pay fine and court costs beyond the maximum imprisonment prescribed by state law for the offense was held to be violative of the Federal Constitution, the state can institute methods, other than incarceration, to enforce the collection of unpaid fines. Wade v. Carsley, 433 F.2d 68, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6973 (5th Cir. Miss. 1970).

However, it had earlier been held that the imprisonment of an indigent for failure to pay a fine did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, where the indigent after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge was sentenced to a jail term and to pay a fine, and after serving her jail term was unable to pay the fine because she was indigent, in view of Code 1942, § 7899 which limits the time of confinement for failure to pay a fine for any one offense to 2 years. Wade v. Carsley, 221 So. 2d 725, 1969 Miss. LEXIS 1506 (Miss. 1969).

That more than two years had elapsed since imposition of fine and sentence, part of which had been unlawfully suspended by county judge, held not to relieve defendant from serving unsatisfied portion on ground that statute provided that no convict should be held in continuous confinement under conviction for any one offense for failure to pay fine and costs in such case for period of more than two years, where defendant was not in continuous confinement under suspended portion of sentence. Cameron v. Thompson, 178 Miss. 434, 173 So. 422, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 222 (Miss. 1937).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

22A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law §§ 1319, 1320 et seq.

CJS.

24 C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1570.

Cross References —

Constitutional prohibition against county convicts being hired or leased, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 226.

Jurisdiction and powers of boards of supervisors generally, see §19-3-41.

Working roads with convicts, see §65-7-113.

Acquisition of facilities for restitution centers, see §99-37-19.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Convict, sentenced to imprisonment in county jail and payment of fine and costs, being required by statute to work each day that he is able, is entitled to credit of $1 for each day on which he is physically able and willing to work until full payment of fine and costs, though county board of supervisors fails to furnish him work and facilities or means therefor, as required by statute. Ex parte Jackson, 177 Miss. 509, 171 So. 545, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 138 (Miss. 1937).

Code sections associated with section containing provision, stricken by amendatory act, that no convict be credited with wages while in jail and not at work, held to entitle convict to credit of $1 on fine and costs for each day spent in jail when ready, able, and willing to work, regardless of title to amendatory act. Ex parte Jackson, 177 Miss. 509, 171 So. 545, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 138 (Miss. 1937).

Prisoner cannot be released on habeas corpus before expiration of period sufficient to pay fine at maximum statutory allowance. Morris v. Waldrop, 151 Miss. 553, 118 So. 621, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 365 (Miss. 1928).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Miss. Code Section 47-1-3 makes it duty of board of supervisors in each county to require each convict sentenced to imprisonment in county jail and payment of fine and costs, or to imprisonment and payment of costs, or to payment of fine and costs, to work out sentence on county convict farm or on public roads or at other public works of sentencing county or contiguous county. Simmons, Jan. 11, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0988.

Where inmate is physically willing and able to work, inmate is entitled to credit against fine and cost in amount of $10 per day, until such fine and cost are fully paid. Stewart, May 20, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0255.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Constitutional prohibition against hiring or leasing county convicts, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 226.

Taxation of county farm lying within drainage district, see §51-31-103.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The operation of a county convict farm is a governmental rather than a proprietary function and for that reason no tort liability lay against the county or the board of supervisors as an entity where negligence of the farm superintendent resulted in serious injuries to a minor prisoner, even though Code 1942, § 7904 specifically required the board of supervisors to establish all proper regulations for the working, guarding, and safekeeping of prisoners. Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10984 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 866, 92 S. Ct. 83, 30 L. Ed. 2d 110, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 1392 (U.S. 1971).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Section 47-1-5 clearly gives a county board of supervisors sole authority to create, control, and maintain a county convict farm. Best, July 8, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0343.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Constitutional authority to work convicts on public roads, see Miss. Const. Art. 4, § 85.

Constitutional prohibition against hiring county convicts, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 226.

Leasing or hiring convicts unlawful, see §47-1-19.

Working of municipal prisoners, see §47-1-41.

Working state prisoners on certain roads, see §§47-5-129,47-5-131.

Use of offenders as servants prohibited, see §47-5-137.

Use of prisoners in county jails to pick up trash, see §§47-5-431 et seq.

Use of prisoners in county jails to maintain certain historic cemeteries and serve food in conjunction with nonprofit organizations, see §47-5-441.

Working public roads with county convicts, see §65-7-113.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The operation of a county convict farm is a governmental rather than a proprietary function and for that reason no tort liability lay against the county or the board of supervisors as an entity where negligence of the farm superintendent resulted in serious injuries to a minor prisoner, even though Code 1942, § 7904 specifically required the board of supervisors to establish all proper regulations for the working, guarding, and safekeeping of prisoners. Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10984 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 866, 92 S. Ct. 83, 30 L. Ed. 2d 110, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 1392 (U.S. 1971).

The superintendent of a county convict farm was negligent and liable in tort for his failure to instruct a trustee guard in the proper and safe handling of firearms, where the shotgun which the guard was carrying accidentally discharged and caused serious injuries to a minor prisoner. Roberts v. Williams, 456 F.2d 819, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10984 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 866, 92 S. Ct. 83, 30 L. Ed. 2d 110, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 1392 (U.S. 1971).

Convict held entitled to credit of $1 for each day physically able and willing to work, although supervisors failed to furnish him work. Ex parte Jackson, 177 Miss. 509, 171 So. 545, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 138 (Miss. 1937).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Based on Section47-1-9, as a general rule, county inmates may not be worked on private property, even if such work benefits the public. However, the Mississippi Emergency Management Law, codified at §33-15-1, et. seq., is an exception to the general rule if the governing authorities determine that an emergency exists and there is a need to use the services of prisoners to protect life or property. Price, December 13, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0793.

Absent an emergency declaration, the use of county inmates for labor by the sheriff must be effected on projects “exclusively public in nature.” Waggoner, Nov. 30, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0718.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 162 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Credit for each day of imprisonment for convicts unable to work, see §41-1-47.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

A sheriff is only a custodian of his prisoners and he cannot release any prisoner for the purpose of allowing the prisoner to seek treatment in a hospital. Hegwood v. State, 213 Miss. 693, 57 So. 2d 500, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 413 (Miss. 1952).

A prisoner who was convicted of unlawful possession of liquors and who was released by the sheriff to allow the prisoner to seek private hospital care, was an escapee and he was not entitled to credit upon his sentence for fine and costs for the time spent away from jail. Hegwood v. State, 213 Miss. 693, 57 So. 2d 500, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 413 (Miss. 1952).

Declaration against sheriff and surety for maltreatment of prisoner resulting in prisoner’s death, in that sheriff took deceased into custody knowing he was ill and placed him at work on public roads, held insufficient in not sufficiently charging that prevention of deceased’s wife from giving him food and medicine while in jail caused death and in not charging he did not have medical attention and wholesome food. State ex rel. Trigg v. West, 171 Miss. 203, 157 So. 81, 1934 Miss. LEXIS 205 (Miss. 1934).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Rights of prisoners under Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. 163 A.L.R. Fed. 285.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Pretrial detainee’s failure to receive compensation for his work on private property, over and above compensation he actually received, did not constitute deprivation of cognizable property right under §§47-1-13 and47-1-21. Brooks v. George County, 84 F.3d 157, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948, 117 S. Ct. 359, 136 L. Ed. 2d 251, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6445 (U.S. 1996).

The inmate showed no property interest or legal right for payment for the work that he performed while incarcerated for civil contempt so as to establish a deprivation of a property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment because Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-13 required payment for work performed by pretrial detainees, and the inmate was not a pretrial detainee; further, Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-47 required credit for assessed fines and penalties based on work performed by those convicted of crimes, and the inmate was not working off an assessed fine or penalty. Carite v. Hinds County, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50112 (S.D. Miss. July 21, 2006).

Pretrial detainee’s failure to receive compensation for his work on public private property constituted deprivation of cognizable property right under §§47-1-13 and47-1-21 whereby pretrial detainee who is permitted to work on public property must be paid same wages as other prisoners. Brooks v. George County, 84 F.3d 157, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948, 117 S. Ct. 359, 136 L. Ed. 2d 251, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6445 (U.S. 1996).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 178, 179.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Where appellant was sentenced to consecutive four-year sentences for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery in May 2000, the court did not have authority to grant his motion for a reduction of sentence filed in October 2004; there was no question that the term during which the circuit court sentenced appellant expired in that four-year time period, and as such, the circuit court lacked authority to suspend his sentence. Walters v. State, 933 So. 2d 313, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 494 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Former portion of statute which authorized the board of supervisors to commute one half of the term of imprisonment of a prisoner who was crippled or incapacitated was unconstitutional as an infringement upon the pardoning power vested in the governor. Whittington v. Stevens, 221 Miss. 598, 73 So. 2d 137, 1954 Miss. LEXIS 568 (Miss. 1954).

A sheriff is only a custodian of his prisoners and he cannot release any prisoner for the purpose of allowing the prisoner to seek treatment in a hospital. Hegwood v. State, 213 Miss. 693, 57 So. 2d 500, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 413 (Miss. 1952).

A prisoner who was convicted of unlawful possession of liquors and who was released by the sheriff to allow the prisoner to seek private hospital care, was an escapee and he was not entitled to credit upon his sentence for fine and costs for the time spent away from jail. Hegwood v. State, 213 Miss. 693, 57 So. 2d 500, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 413 (Miss. 1952).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-221.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Escape and recapture of county convicts, see §97-9-43.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

27A Am. Jur. 2d, Escape § 27.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 149.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment substituted “It is unlawful for any county-housed state inmate” for “It shall be unlawful for any county prisoner or prisoners” in the first sentence of (1); and inserted “state” preceding “county or municipality” in (2)(a).

The 2008 amendment added the last sentence in (2)(a).

Cross References —

Constitutional prohibition against hiring county convicts, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 226.

Prisoners permitted to work on public roads or other public works, see §47-1-9.

Working of municipal prisoners, see §47-1-41.

Use of offenders as servants prohibited, see §47-5-431 et seq.

User of prisoners in county jails to pick up trash, see §§47-5-431 et seq.

Use of prisoners in county jails to maintain certain historic cemeteries and serve food in conjunction with nonprofit organizations, see §47-5-441.

Federal Aspects—

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 USCS § 501(c)(3).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Miss. Code Section 47-1-19 prohibits agreement to hire out prisoners to HUD subcontractor. Best, Feb. 18, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0940.

Prisoners may not generally be worked on private property, except a municipality may provide prisoners for public service work for nonprofit charitable organizations to provide food to charities, and prisoners may be worked on private property during emergency situations pursuant to the Mississippi Emergency Management Law. Pickens, July 3, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0365.

A private corporation may not employ county prisoners to provide food services for the jail in which such prisoners are incarcerated even if such prisoners are compensated for such work. McWilliams, July 25, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0437.

A county prisoner under the supervision and charge of the sheriff, may not, with the sheriff’s approval, wash and clean the private automobile of a constable that is used by the constable in the performance of his official duties. Manning, September 4, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0542.

County inmates may not voluntarily perform work for private individuals on private property, such as personal automobiles or private land. Huffman, September 4, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0547.

County prisoners may not be used to wash and clean vehicles owned by private citizens, even if for a nominal consideration. Griffith, November 25, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0726.

A county board of supervisors is not authorized to include in a request for proposals to pick up and dispose of garbage any language regarding the county providing prisoners to pick up the garbage. Shepard, Feb. 18, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0069.

When a government official leases or hires out inmate labor to a private citizen or company, he is guilty of a violation of the statute. McLeod, March 17, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0142.

Absent an emergency declaration, the use of county inmates for labor by the sheriff must be effected on projects “exclusively public in nature.” Waggoner, Nov. 30, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0718.

County inmates in the custody of the sheriff would not be allowed to work on properties of aa nonprofit charitable organization that does not provide food to charities. Griffith, Sept. 26, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0496.

Whether or not any specific organization is a nonprofit charitable organization that provides food to charities is a factual determination that cannot be made by official opinion. Assuming that a County Community Action Program meets the requirements of this section, then the county inmates in the custody of the sheriff would be allowed to work on such properties. Griffith, Oct. 30, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0567.

County inmates may not be allowed to perform “grass cutting” for any churches and/or nonprofit charitable organizations as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Meadows, Oct. 28, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0422.

If it is determined that an organization that provides shelter for battered women and children has indeed obtained 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit charitable organization, the sheriff can utilize county inmates for requested construction purposes, provided those inmates are under the exclusive control and management of the sheriff. Lawrence, Dec. 16, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0618.

Section 47-1-19 does not establish work programs, but merely recognizes that inmates will be worked when sentenced to jail. Once sentenced to jail, it is up to the custodian of the jail to determine whether and when to work the inmate in a public service work program. Nowak, July 28, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0268.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Jail docket generally, see §19-25-63.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Pretrial detainee’s failure to receive compensation for his work on private property, over and above compensation he actually received, did not constitute deprivation of cognizable property right under §§47-1-13 and47-1-21. Brooks v. George County, 84 F.3d 157, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948, 117 S. Ct. 359, 136 L. Ed. 2d 251, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6445 (U.S. 1996).

Pretrial detainee’s failure to receive compensation for his work on public private property constituted deprivation of cognizable property right under §§47-1-13 and47-1-21 whereby pretrial detainee who is permitted to work on public property must be paid same wages as other prisoners. Brooks v. George County, 84 F.3d 157, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11455 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 948, 117 S. Ct. 359, 136 L. Ed. 2d 251, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6445 (U.S. 1996).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The jail docket may be computerized, but a copy should be printed and kept in a bound volume. Womack, Apr. 18, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0176.

A sheriff’s public “Jail Docket” is for the purpose of maintaining a record of individuals housed on criminal charges. The identity of an individual housed because of a civil commitment due to mental or drug and alcohol proceedings is not required to be entered in the “Jail Docket,” and the sheriff may maintain a separate “Mental Commitment” docket. Maples, March 2, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-00073, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 77.

Cross References —

Constitutional authority for separation of the sexes in prisons, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 225.

Duty of sheriffs to provide separate rooms for the sexes, see §19-25-71.

Separation of sexes in municipal prisons, see §47-1-39.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 29, 30.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

When a convict has been placed on the county farm or road camp to work out a sentence, such convict comes under the immediate jurisdiction of the foreman or guard appointed by the board for that purpose and subject to the rules and regulations laid down by the board of supervisors. The sheriff loses direct control of the convict, but it is his duty, under the law, to keep up with the prisoners on such farms and in such camps in a supervisory way and see that they are being worked and treated in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the board. This appears to be the only duty imposed upon the sheriff by this section. Ops Atty Gen, 1933-35, p. 48.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 23, 24-28, 85, 87, 91.

24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 467, Proof of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 14, 24, 25, 59, 63-65, 68, 70, 79, 80, 116.

Cross References —

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

In order to establish a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause based on a claim of excessive use of force by prison officers, a prisoner who shows unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain is not required to show serious injury, given that (a) the absence of serious injury, although relevant to the inquiry as to whether the use of force violated the Eighth Amendment, does not end that inquiry, and (b) contemporary standards of decency are always violated when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, regardless of whether significant injury is evident. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1372 (U.S. 1992).

Blows allegedly directed at the inmate by the security officers were not de minimis for Eighth Amendment purposes, and the extent of the inmate’s alleged injuries provided no basis for dismissal of the inmate’s claim against the officers under 42 USCS § 1983. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1372 (U.S. 1992).

For purposes of establishing whether prison officials have inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering on a prisoner so as to violate the prisoner’s rights under the cruel and unusual punishment clause, where the officials are accused of using excessive physical force, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied (a) in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or (b) maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 995, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1372 (U.S. 1992).

Declaration against sheriff and surety for maltreatment of prisoner resulting in prisoner’s death, in that sheriff took deceased into custody knowing he was ill and placed him at work on public roads, held insufficient in not sufficiently charging that prevention of deceased’s wife from giving him food and medicine while in jail caused death and in not charging he did not have medical attention and wholesome food. State ex rel. Trigg v. West, 171 Miss. 203, 157 So. 81, 1934 Miss. LEXIS 205 (Miss. 1934).

A convict committed to a county convict farm cannot be whipped for discipline in the absence of authority from the board of supervisors for the infliction of such punishment, under Acts 1894 ch 76 §§ 23 and 24. Davis v. State, 81 Miss. 56, 33 So. 286, 1902 Miss. LEXIS 102 (Miss. 1902).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Prisoners’ privileges of mail, telephone, visitation, access to law library and recreation are not addressed by state statute. Mullins, March 27, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0159.

A sheriff may provide a meal from the county jail at no cost to the members of the grand jury as part of their inspection of the county jail. Caranna, April 21, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0207.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Reviewability before trial of order denying qualified immunity to defendant sued in state court under 42 USCS § 1983. 49 A.L.R.5th 717.

Attorney’s fees awards under § 803(d) of Prison Litigation Reform Act (42 U.S.C.S. § 1997e(d). 165 A.L.R. Fed. 551.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 23 et seq.

22 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Prisoners' Rights Litigation.

24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 467, Proof of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 14, 24, 25, 26, 50, 59, 63-65, 68, 70, 79, 80, 116, 123, 124.

Cross References —

Judicial powers of board of supervisors, see §19-3-39.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 23 et seq., 181 et seq.

24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 467, Proof of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 127.

Cross References —

Personal inspection of county jail by grand jury, see §13-5-55.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand Jury §§ 25 et seq.

CJS.

38A C.J.S., Grand Juries §§ 88 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Convict manager cannot detain convict without warrant although there has been a conviction and sentence has not expired. Ex parte Moody, 104 Miss. 836, 61 So. 741, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 86 (Miss. 1913).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 23-28.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17-21, 23-25, 128, 129.

Cross References —

Authority of board of supervisors to buy or lease land for county farm, see §47-1-5.

Cross References —

Separation of sexes, see §47-1-23.

Jail owned jointly by county and municipality, see §§47-1-49 et seq.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Where defendant pleaded guilty for unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors in violation of municipal ordinance and received suspended sentence, the order revoking the suspended sentence of thirty days in county jail and providing that defendant should be committed to sheriff to serve sentence in county jail was not proper. Gage v. State, 219 Miss. 338, 68 So. 2d 417, 1953 Miss. LEXIS 393 (Miss. 1953).

Municipality held not liable for injury to prisoner, because of being forced to work on streets while shackled and chained. Warren v. Booneville, 151 Miss. 457, 118 So. 290, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 322 (Miss. 1928).

Under this section, Code 1942 § 3374-135, a city is not obliged to maintain its own jail, but may dispose of its prisoners in other ways. Marshall v. Mayor, etc., of Meridian, 103 Miss. 206, 60 So. 135, 1912 Miss. LEXIS 153 (Miss. 1912).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

City that arrests persons through its municipal police department must either house them in its own city jail or enter into contract with county board of supervisors to house city prisoners in county jail; sheriff may be required to accept persons sentenced to jail by city court only if city has contract with board of supervisors for such. Brown, July 29, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0561.

City is responsible for paying medical expenses of city prisoners housed in city jail, as long as they remain city prisoners; in felony cases, prisoner remains city prisoner until he waives preliminary hearing or is bound over to grand jury. Brewer, Oct. 7, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0532.

Sheriff may work municipal prisoners on county work crew only if municipality has contract with county which provides that sheriff may work municipal prisoners on county work crew. McGrew, Jan. 12, 1994, A.G. Op. #93-0966.

County may refuse to accept municipal prisoners in absence of agreement between county and municipality. Crawford, March 31, 1994, A.G. Op. #94-0187.

A municipality may provide meals for county prisoners working on city streets pursuant to a contract between the city and the county executed pursuant to Section 47-1-39. Gale, March 1, 1995, A.G. Op. #95-0053.

A municipality may furnish labor and all equipment necessary to install water/sewer lines and electrical services for a jail under an interlocal agreement as long as the municipality receives adequate consideration under the terms of the agreement. See Sections 17-5-1 and 21-17-1. Doty, December 13, 1995, A.G. Op. #95-0834.

The board of supervisors of a county is granted sole authority to contract with a municipality for the housing of municipal prisoners and the sheriff is bound thereby; the sheriff may be required to accept persons sentenced to jail by the city court only if the city has a contract with the board of supervisors for such. Richardson, June 12, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0291.

A city may contract with a county regional correctional facility through the county board of supervisors to house city inmates and provide guard service for inmate work crews for the working of streets and other municipal projects in the city by entering into an interlocal agreement under the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1974. Inmate work crews would have to consist of municipal inmates from the city or county inmates if the board of supervisors has authorized such work under Section 47-1-9. Any guard that is employed by the facility to oversee such work crews would have to be deputized by the county sheriff. Putman, Aug. 19, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0410.

A county board of supervisors is, by Section 47-1-39, granted sole authority to contract with a municipality for the housing of municipal prisoners and the sheriff is bound thereby. The sheriff may then accept persons sentenced to jail by the city court only if the city has a contract with the board for such. However, the county jail would not be allowed to house prisoners of a city, located outside of the county, unless an interlocal agreement is formed between the county and city pursuant to Sections 17-13-1 et seq. Kemp, Mar. 17, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0072.

A sheriff is only required to accept municipal prisoners in the county jail if the municipality has a contract with the board of supervisors to house that municipality’s prisoners. In addition, a board of supervisors is not required to enter into a contract with a municipality for the housing of the municipality’s prisoners. Tanner, Oct. 13, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0504.

Where a preliminary hearing is provided to a defendant charged for a felony and held as a municipal prisoner, the defendant should be bound over to a grand jury and thereby become a county prisoner after the hearing, if the judge so determines. Wiggins, March 2, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-00075, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 78.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment added the (1) designation, and therein, in the first sentence, substituted “may be worked” for “shall be worked,” substituted “Section 99-19-20” for “Section 47-1-47,” and in the last sentence, substituted “shall receive credit at the rate provided in Section 99-19-20 for each day worked” for “shall receive credit of one dollar ($1.00) per day for each day worked, although the county may not agree to pay so much”; and added (2).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment added the (1) designation, and therein, in the second and third sentences, made minor stylistic changes, and in the second sentence, substituted “costs assessed against him at the rate provided under Section 99-19-20” for “costs assessed against him of ten dollars ($10.00) per day”; and added (2).

Cross References —

Enforcement of sentence, see §47-1-1.

Convicts physically unable not required to work, see §47-1-11.

Medical aid for prisoners, see §47-1-57.

Removal of prisoners in case of infectious disease, see §§47-3-7,47-3-9.

Clothing for persons working on state highway projects, see §65-1-8.

Authority for use of persons convicted of an offense for work on state highway projects, see §65-1-8.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The inmate showed no property interest or legal right for payment for the work that he performed while incarcerated for civil contempt so as to establish a deprivation of a property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment because Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-13 required payment for work performed by pretrial detainees, and the inmate was not a pretrial detainee; further, Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-47 required credit for assessed fines and penalties based on work performed by those convicted of crimes, and the inmate was not working off an assessed fine or penalty. Carite v. Hinds County, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50112 (S.D. Miss. July 21, 2006).

Incarceration of indigent for involuntary failure to pay fine and court costs which extend the total term of imprisonment beyond the maximum period prescribed by state law for the offense creates invidious discrimination based on ability to pay and is violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wade v. Carsley, 433 F.2d 68, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6973 (5th Cir. Miss. 1970).

Although incarceration beyond the maximum imprisonment prescribed by the state law for a particular offense for involuntary failure to pay a fine and court costs is violative of the Federal Constitution, the state can institute methods, other than incarceration, to enforce the collection of the remaining portion of the fine. Wade v. Carsley, 433 F.2d 68, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6973 (5th Cir. Miss. 1970).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Miss. Code Section 47-1-47 provides that, for each day’s work convict is required to do, convict shall receive credit of $10 per day, until convict’s fine and costs are fully paid. Simmons, Jan 11, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0988.

Where inmate is physically willing and able to work, inmate is entitled to credit against fine and cost in amount of $10 per day, until such fine and cost are fully paid. Stewart, May 20, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0255.

Prisoners’ privileges of mail, telephone, visitation, access to law library and recreation are not addressed by state statute. Mullins, March 27, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0159.

Where a defendant owes a $250.00 fine but refuses to pay it, he can be sent to jail under §99-19-20(2); however, that statute limits the jail time to 10 days (one day for each $25.00 of the fine). If the defendant chooses to work during those 10 days, his fine will be reduced by $10.00 a day under this section. At the end of the 10 days, the defendant must be released. However, he will still owe $150.00 in fines. Thornton, May 29, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0306.

A defendant who is jailed for not paying criminal fines is entitled to receive a credit against such fine of ten dollars per day under this section for each day that he works or is willing and able to work; this credit would be applied to both fines and assessments. Note that under Section 99-19-20 jail time may not exceed one day for each twenty-five dollars of the fines owed by the defendant. Strahan, July 7, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0321.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-221.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102 et seq.

Law Reviews.

1979 Mississippi Supreme Court Review: Criminal Law and Procedure. 50 Miss. L. J. 763, December 1979.

Cross References —

Penalty for injuring or destroying any property of jail, see §97-17-39.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Since the functions of the sheriff are confined to his own county, except in the case of the pursuit of an escaping offender, there can be no recovery on a sheriff’s bond for the alleged unlawful treatment of one accused of crime apprehended in another state where such treatment and the event complained of occurred in such other state. McLean v. Mississippi, 96 F.2d 741, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 3552 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 623, 59 S. Ct. 84, 83 L. Ed. 399, 1938 U.S. LEXIS 805 (U.S. 1938), disapproved, Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 60 S. Ct. 153, 84 L. Ed. 167, 1939 U.S. LEXIS 77 (U.S. 1939).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

70 Am. Jur. 2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables §§ 30, 31.

CJS.

80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables §§ 51-53.

Cross References —

Personal inspection of jail by grand jury, see §13-5-55.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 181-185.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37, 42, 43, 46-49, 63, 97, 102.

Cross References —

Additional guards for county jails, see §19-25-75.

Removal of prisoners to jail of another county, see §§47-3-1 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 216.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 4, 5.

Cross References —

Personal inspection of health of prisoners by grand jury, see §13-5-55.

General treatment of prisoners, see §47-1-47.

Removal of prisoners in case of infectious disease, see §§47-3-7,47-3-9.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

A complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a prisoner’s medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner. In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. It is only such indifference that can offend “evolving standards of decency” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. McFadden v. State, 542 So. 2d 871, 1989 Miss. LEXIS 65 (Miss. 1989).

Where neither the sheriff nor the jailer ever examined the prisoner to form an opinion as to whether he did or did not need medical aid, the sheriff was not relieved from liability for death of prisoner who was suffering from ulcers, on the ground that the sheriff was acting in judicial capacity. Farmer v. State, 224 Miss. 96, 79 So. 2d 528, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 465 (Miss. 1955).

This section [Code 1942, § 4262], has no application to a case where a prisoner, shot by a deputy sheriff while attempting to escape, is carried to his mother’s house and is there treated by a physician procured by the sheriff at the suggestion of the circuit judge. Gray v. Coahoma County, 72 Miss. 303, 16 So. 903, 1894 Miss. LEXIS 118 (Miss. 1894).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Nothing prohibits the county from submitting a claim to an insurance carrier for the costs incurred by an inmate who has insurance. Fortier, Aug. 30, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0490.

Sheriffs are required to provide reasonable and necessary dental aid to prisoners suffering from illnesses or injuries which dental assistance would alleviate; however, sheriffs are not required to provide routine dental work for prisoners. McLean, May 3, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0298.

Sheriffs are required to provide reasonable medical care for serious pre-existing illnesses and injuries of prisoners and detainees. McLean, May 3, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0298.

Pursuant to Section 47-1-57 the board of supervisors may contract with a physician for the jail and the sheriff must use that physician. The funds used to pay for such a physician should come from the county general fund. However, the cost of the contract should not be borne by the sheriff’s budget unless funds are included in the budget for the contract as for medical expenses covered by the contract. Pope, October 11, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0654.

Municipalities are liable for health care and hospitalization costs of indigent prisoners with preexisting medical conditions. Davies, March 20, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0095.

The responsibility for medical expenses incurred by a municipal prisoner lies with the prisoner; if the prisoner is determined indigent and unable to pay his medical expenses, then the municipality has the responsibility for those medical costs. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the responsibility for the medical costs of a municipal prisoner housed in the county jail remains with the municipality. Davis, December 18, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0741.

If a prisoner is unable to pay medical costs, the municipality should pay such costs. If the municipality determines that the prisoner is able to pay for the medical treatment, it may seek reimbursement by civil suit. Miller, Aug. 20, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0387.

A governmental entity is not responsible for the medical care of an individual who is no longer in the custody of that entity. As a former inmate is no longer in custody, a governmental entity is not responsible for their medical care. Parker, Sept. 17, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0444.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Right of state prison authorities to administer neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs to prisoner without his or her consent – state cases. 75 A.L.R.4th 1124.

Malpractice in diagnosis or treatment of meningitis. 51 A.L.R.5th 301.

Provision of Hormone Therapy or Sexual Reassignment Surgery to State Inmates with Gender Identity Disorder (GID). 89 A.L.R.6th 701.

Relief under Federal Civil Rights Acts to state prisoners complaining of denial of medical care. 28 A.L.R. Fed. 279.

Constitutional right of prisoners to abortion services and facilities – federal cases. 90 A.L.R. Fed. 683.

Federal constitutional and statutory claims by HIV-positive inmates as to medical treatment or conditions of confinement. 162 A.L.R. Fed. 181.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 99.

22 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Prisoners' Rights Litigation.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 78 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

County was not entitled to a dismissal of a health care provider’s reimbursement claim for a prisoner’s medical expenses under Miss. Code Ann. §47-1-59 because such claims were separate and distinct from the state’s law related to sovereign immunity and the claims were not implied contractual claims subject to immunity under Miss. Code Ann. §11-46-3. Vuncannon v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 2d 577, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52190 (N.D. Miss. 2009).

In an action to recover on a promissory note, where the plaintiff attempted to convert its cause of action, by way of motion for summary judgment, from a suit on a promissory note to one for relief under §47-1-59, such a change could not be accomplished in this manner and the proper procedure was for the plaintiff to amend its bill of complaint to allege that a cause of action existed under §47-1-59. Pearl River County Bd. of Supervisors v. South East Collections Agency, Inc., 459 So. 2d 785, 1984 Miss. LEXIS 1977 (Miss. 1984).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Based on Section 47-1-59, a suspect who is in the custody of a law enforcement agency and needs medical attention has the responsibility for paying for his own medical bills. If the suspect is indigent and cannot pay his own medical bills, then he should be treated as a state aid patient. If the suspect does not qualify for state aid or state aid does not cover the full medical expenses, then the county board of supervisors is responsible for such medical expenses. Jones, November 22, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0785.

Municipalities are liable for health care and hospitalization costs of indigent prisoners with preexisting medical conditions. Davies, March 20, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0095.

The responsibility for medical expenses incurred by a municipal prisoner lies with the prisoner; if the prisoner is determined indigent and unable to pay his medical expenses, then the municipality has the responsibility for those medical costs. Absent an agreement to the contrary, the responsibility for the medical costs of a municipal prisoner housed in the county jail remains with the municipality. Davis, December 18, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0741.

A governmental entity is not responsible for the medical care of an individual who is no longer in the custody of that entity. As a former inmate is no longer in custody, a governmental entity is not responsible for their medical care. Parker, Sept. 17, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0444.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Right of state prison authorities to administer neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs to prisoner without his or her consent – state cases. 75 A.L.R.4th 1124.

Provision of Hormone Therapy or Sexual Reassignment Surgery to State Inmates with Gender Identity Disorder (GID). 89 A.L.R.6th 701.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 99, 217.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 78 et seq., 136, 140.

Cross References —

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 19-21.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 153.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 3, on May 1, 1992.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

An inmate housed in a jail or other local detention facility may not use that facility or jail as his residence for voter registration purposes; an inmate who has not been convicted of a crime that disqualifies him from voting, may register by mail in the county in which he resided immediately prior to his incarceration. Scott, Oct. 27, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0644.

Inmates under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Department of Corrections should not be used in determining the population of county supervisor districts for redistricting purposes by virtue of their temporary presence in a detention facility or jail in the county, unless their actual place of residence is also in the county. Johnson, Feb. 22, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0060.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

An inmate housed in a city jail pursuant to a detainer filed by a county, which city and county were under federal court order to relieve overcrowding and had entered into an interlocal agreement pursuant to which the city housed a certain number of county inmates, was in the custody of the county. Jones v. City of Jackson, 203 F.3d 875, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1992 (5th Cir. Miss. 2000).

The circuit court of one county erred in holding that it had no authority to give a defendant credit for time served in another county while awaiting trial in a second county, where the first county retained the defendant on a detainer when it allowed him to be transferred to the second county, which, under §47-3-1, did not release him from the jurisdiction of the first county. Lee v. State, 437 So. 2d 1208, 1983 Miss. LEXIS 2881 (Miss. 1983).

In prosecution for murder where the accused was confined in a jail in Louisville, instead of Vaiden where the accused was tried, it was no error, where Vaiden had no jail. Goldsby v. State, 226 Miss. 1, 226 Miss. 20, 86 So. 2d 27, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 604 (Miss. 1955), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 944, 77 S. Ct. 266, 1 L. Ed. 2d 239, 1956 U.S. LEXIS 61 (U.S. 1956).

This section [Code 1942, § 2499] does not authorize the removal of a prisoner to another county for any purpose not named in the statute. Ex parte Buck, 104 Miss. 661, 61 So. 651, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 67 (Miss. 1913).

The statute [Code 1942, § 2499] does not warrant the removal of a person sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of the county where his offense was committed, to the jail of another county, to prevent him from directing, from the jail, the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Ex parte Buck, 104 Miss. 661, 61 So. 651, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 67 (Miss. 1913).

Order for removal of prisoner from one jail to another for safekeeping does not exhaust court’s power to make another order of removal that he should be taken to another jail for safekeeping. Wray v. Kelly, 98 Miss. 172, 53 So. 492, 1910 Miss. LEXIS 49 (Miss. 1910).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 163-166.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 18, 128, 129.

Cross References —

Removal of prisoners in case of infectious or contagious disease, see §§47-3-7,47-3-9.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Code 1942, § 2499, does not authorize the removal of a prisoner to another county for any purpose not named in the statute. Ex parte Buck, 104 Miss. 661, 61 So. 651, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 67 (Miss. 1913).

The statute [Code 1942, § 2499] does not warrant the removal of a person sentenced to imprisonment in the jail of the county where his offense was committed, to the jail of another county, to prevent him from directing, from the jail, the illegal sale of intoxicating liquor. Ex parte Buck, 104 Miss. 661, 61 So. 651, 1913 Miss. LEXIS 67 (Miss. 1913).

Order for removal of prisoner from one jail to another for safekeeping does not exhaust court’s power to make another order of removal that he should be taken to another jail for safekeeping. Wray v. Kelly, 98 Miss. 172, 53 So. 492, 1910 Miss. LEXIS 49 (Miss. 1910).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 163-166.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 18, 128, 129.

Cross References —

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 163-166.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 18, 128, 129.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 99 et seq., 163-166, 203.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 83, 84, 128, 129.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 99 et seq., 163-166, 203.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 83, 84, 128, 129.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1992, ch. 537, § 1, on August 12, 1992.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment substituted “Board of Supervisors of Leflore County” for “‘Delta Correctional Facility Authority’ a public body authorized in Chapter 852 Local and Private Laws of 1992” near the beginning of (2); and added (5).

The 2013 amendment added (7).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Validity of indictment.

Defendant’s conviction for simple assault of an employee of a private correctional facility was appropriate because the nature and cause of the charge against defendant were clear and the indictment properly informed him of the possible defenses to the charged offense. The trial court was within its discretion in finding that the jury properly weighed the evidence and determined that the State showed that the victim suffered an injury as a result of defendant’s striking her with his fist. Moten v. State, 20 So.3d 757, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 763 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Although counties may contract with private entities to house federal inmates, such entities are not authorized by this section to house inmates from other states that are not federal inmates. Puckett, July 3, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0388.

The board of alderman of the Town of Woodville may contract with Corrections Corporation of America to incarcerate Town of Woodville prisoners at the private facility in Wilkinson County. Wilkerson, January 16, 1998, #97-0790.

Subsection (1) of this section is sufficient authority for a contract between Leflore County and Correctional Corporation of America, and for a contract between the City of Greenwood and Correctional Corporation of America, for the private incarceration of their inmates. Perkins, April 9, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0154.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 7.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1992, ch. 537, § 2, on August 12, 1992.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 7.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1992, ch. 537, § 3, on August 12, 1992.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Private jail facilities are generally not authorized, but any governmental unit or units together may contract with private sources for operation and supervision of juvenile detention centers. Barrett, Oct. 21, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0718.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 7.

Cross References —

Possession of prohibited items by employees or officers of Department of Corrections or others allowed on premises, see §47-5-192.

General prohibitions regarding employees or officers of Department of Corrections, sheriff’s department, private correctional facility or other persons or offenders, see §47-5-193.

Special Needs Prison Program of 1994, see §§47-5-1101 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1976, ch. 440, § 1, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Mississippi Corrections Act of 1976.’ ”

Laws of 1981, ch. 465, § 118, which provided for the automatic repeal of provisions reenacting the Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board on June 30, 1984, was repealed by Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 126. In turn, Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for the automatic repeal of these provisions from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986), repealed Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, thereby removing the repeal date.

Laws of 1988, ch. 503, § 1, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Mississippi Board of Corrections is hereby abolished and all power, authority, duties and functions of such board shall hereafter vest in and be performed by the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The terms ‘Mississippi Board of Corrections’, ‘Board of Corrections’ and ‘board’ appearing in the laws in connection with the performance of the board’s functions transferred to the Mississippi Department of Corrections shall be the Department of Corrections, and more particularly such words or terms shall mean the Mississippi Department of Corrections whenever they appear.”

Laws of 2013, ch. 524, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. (1) There is hereby created the Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force to undertake a comprehensive review of the state’s corrections system and criminal justice system. The task force shall be comprised of twenty-one (21) members, as follows:

“(a) The Chairpersons of the Corrections Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives or their designees;

“(b) The Chairpersons of the Judiciary ‘B‘ Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives or their designees;

“(c) The Lieutenant Governor or a designee;

“(d) The Speaker of the House of Representatives or a designee;

“(e) The Commissioner of Corrections or a designee;

“(f) The Attorney General or a designee;

“(g) A state Supreme Court justice or Court of Appeals judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(h) A state circuit court judge who presides over a certified drug court, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(i) A state justice court judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(j) A state county court judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(k) A county public defender, appointed by the Governor;

“( l ) The Director of the Capital Defense Counsel within the Office of the State Public Defender or a designee;

“(m) A member of the Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association appointed by its executive director;

“(n) A district attorney or an assistant district attorney, appointed by the Attorney General;

“(o) A member of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors, chosen by the Executive Director of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors;

“(p) A member representing the Southern Poverty Law Center appointed by the Managing Attorney for Mississippi;

“(q) A member of the Mississippi Association for Justice appointed by its executive committee president;

“(r) A member of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police appointed by its executive board president; and

“(s) The President of the Mississippi Prosecutors Association or a designee.

“(2) The appointed members of the task force must be appointed within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this act. The members shall be a part of the task force for the life of the task force. Any vacancy in the task force shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner prescribed above. The task force shall hold its first meeting within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this act, on the call of the Commissioner of Corrections. At the first meeting, the task force shall elect from among its membership a permanent chairperson and any other officers, if any, determined to be necessary. A majority of the membership of the task force shall constitute a quorum, and shall meet at the call of the chairperson, or upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the task force. All members must be notified in writing of all meetings at least five (5) days before the date on which a meeting of the task force is scheduled.

“(3) The task force shall study and make recommendations for improving the relationship between the corrections system and the criminal justice system in Mississippi. In making those recommendations, the task force shall:

“(a) Undertake a comprehensive review of all areas of the state’s corrections system, including state, local and tribal governments’ corrections practices and policies regarding sentencing guidelines;

“(b) Review the total number of offender populations in Mississippi correctional facilities to determine which offenders receive or serve differing sentences for the same crimes, enumerating any discrepancies in sentencing for conviction of the same crimes and documenting the percentage of offenders whose sentence was a result of mandatory minimum sentencing;

“(c) Make findings regarding such review and recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices and laws designed to prevent, deter and reduce crime and violence, reduce recidivism, improve cost-effectiveness and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system;

“(d) Identify critical problems in the criminal justice system and assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of state and local funds in the criminal justice system;

“(e) Consult with state, local and tribal government and nongovernmental leaders, including law enforcement officials, legislators, judges, court administrators, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation and parole officials, criminal justice planners, criminologists, civil rights and liberties organizations, formerly incarcerated individuals and corrections officials; and

“(f) Conduct a comprehensive review of the drug court programs, intensive supervision programs and any other alternative incarceration programs utilized in the state and provide detailed recommendations regarding the appropriate funding to support those programs.

“The Mississippi Department of Corrections shall provide appropriate staff support to assist the task force in carrying out its duties. The Commissioner of Corrections shall designate an appropriate employee to act as a point of contact for the provision of staff support to the task force. In addition, the task force may consult with employees of any state agency or department necessary to accomplish the task force’s responsibilities under this section.

“(4) The task force shall prepare and submit a final report that contains a detailed statement of findings, conclusions and recommendations of the task force to the Legislature, the Governor and to local and tribal governments by December 31, 2013. It is the intention of the Legislature that, given the importance of the matters before the task force, the task force should work toward unanimously supported findings and recommendations and the task force shall state the vote total for each recommendation contained in its report to the Legislature. The report submitted under this subsection shall be made available to the public.

“The recommendations for improving the relationship between the corrections system and the criminal justice system in Mississippi may include proposals for specific statutory changes for improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and methods to foster cooperation among state agencies and between the state and local governments. The task force shall be abolished upon submission of the report to the Governor and the Legislature.”

Cross References —

Regulations relating to penitentiary-made goods, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Power of court to suspend sentence and place defendant on probation, see §47-7-33.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Sovereign immunity.

1. In general.

Section99-19-39, which governs the detention of a convict pending appeal, confers no right in a convicted felon to be incarcerated in county jail pending an appeal to the Supreme Court; construing §99-19-39 to create such a right would place that statutory section in conflict with the provisions of §47-5-1 et seq. which create a comprehensive correctional system to deal with the incarceration of all felony offenders; under the comprehensive legislative scheme setting up the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the circuit court sentences to the Department and not to any particular facility, and neither the circuit court nor the Supreme Court can order the Department to return a prisoner duly committed to its custody to county jail as a matter of right. Nicolaou v. State, 596 So. 2d 863, 1992 Miss. LEXIS 133 (Miss. 1992).

There is a constitutional requirement for state defendants, in a suit by prison inmates for certain prison reforms, to establish certain time-tables for and proceed to implement (a) adequate medical facilities and services, and (b) the reduction of overcrowding of prison inmates at residential camps as well as the elimination of those residential camps unfit for human habitation. Gates v. Collier, 390 F. Supp. 482, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056 (N.D. Miss. 1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 965, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13465 (5th Cir. 1976).

An opinion in a class action brought by inmates of the state penitentiary against the superintendent of the penitentiary, members of the Mississippi Penitentiary Board, and the governor (joined in by the United States as plaintiff intervenor) describes in some detail the undesirable and unconstitutional conditions existing at the penitentiary. The trial court granted both prohibitory and affirmative relief and retained jurisdiction to ensure that the court orders are complied with. Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12007 (N.D. Miss. 1972), aff'd, 501 F.2d 1291, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6790 (5th Cir. Miss. 1974), amended, 390 F. Supp. 482, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056 (N.D. Miss. 1975).

2. Sovereign immunity.

Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) was considered an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity because state statute, Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-1 et. seq., considered the MDOC an arm of the state; additionally, the MDOC was funded by the state. The department was responsible for the confinement of prisoners throughout the state; it apparently had the authority to sue and be sued in its own name, and, finally, it was authorized by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-5 to hold and use property. Morgan v. Mississippi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74001 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2008), amended, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55347 (S.D. Miss. June 16, 2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Censorship of convicted prisoners’ “legal” mail. 47 A.L.R.3d 1150.

Censorship of convicted prisoners’ “nonlegal” mail. 47 A.L.R.3d 1192.

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 72, 83, 90, 99, 107, 111.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7.

15A Am. Jur. Legal Forms 2d, Public Works and Contracts §§ 216:228 (use of materials produced in penal or correctional institutions).

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole §§ 15, 16 et seq.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 3.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1986, ch. 491, § 1, effective from and after passage (approved April 15, 1986), provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Mississippi Board of Corrections is hereby authorized to convey the right-of-way on the grounds of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, as is hereinafter described, exclusive of gas, water, mineral and subsurface rights, to Sunflower County, Mississippi, for the purpose of completing the Federal Aid Public Road Project No. RS-2847(2)B- Lombardy Road. Said specific right-of-way is described as follows:

“4.794 acres, more or less, located in Section 15, Township 24 North, Range 4 West, Sunflower County, Mississippi, and more particularly described as follows:

“Begin at a point on the centerline of the Lombardy Road at Station 512+ 89.14, with said point being the Southwest corner of Section 15; thence North 00 degrees 33´ 36/” East 410.86 feet to Station 517+ 00 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 24´ 30/” curve to the left a distance 399.97 feet to Station 520+ 99.97 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 24´ 30/” curve to the right a distance 399.97 feet to Station 524+ 99.94 along the said centerline; thence North 00 degrees 33´ 36/” East 2,672.71 feet to Station 551+ 72.65 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 30´ 00/” curve to the left at a distance 248.67 feet to Station 554+ 21.32 along the said centerline; thence North 00 degrees 41´ 00/” West 578.68 feet to Station 560+ 00 along the said centerline; thence West 10 feet to Station 560+ 00 thence North 00 degrees 41´ 00/” West 100 feet to Station 561+ 00; thence East 10 feet to Station 561+ 00, thence North 00 degrees 41´ 00/” West 410 feet to Station 565+ 10 along the said centerline; thence West 80 feet to Station 565+ 10; thence South 00 degrees 41´ 00/” East 1,688.68 feet to Station 554+ 21.32; thence around a 00 degrees 30´ 00/” curve to the right a distance 248.67 feet to Station 551+ 72.65; thence South 00 degrees 33´ 36’´ West 2,672.71 feet to Station 524+ 99.94; thence around a 00 degrees 24´ 30/” curve to the left at a distance 399.97 feet to Station 520+ 99.97; thence around a 00 degrees 24´ 30/” curve to the right at a distance 399.97 feet to Station 517+ 00.00; thence South 00 degrees 33´ 36/” West 410.86 feet to Station 512+ 89.14; thence West 40.00 feet to Station 512+ 89.14 to the said centerline and the Point of Beginning.

“Less and Except: 2.996 acres, more or less, existing road right-of-way.

“The Attorney General shall assist in the preparation of legal documents necessary to transfer said right-of-way under the terms specified herein.”

Laws of 1993, ch. 320, § 1, eff from and after passage (approved March 11, 1993) provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Governor’s Office of General Services, Department of Finance and Administration, is authorized in its discretion to sell to the Department of Corrections real property described as follows:

“Certain property forming a portion of the right-of-way of the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company’s abandoned Sunflower District (‘LD’ Line), said property situated in the East half of the Northwest Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of Section 27; West half of the West half of Section 34; and the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 3 West, and in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 23 North, Range 3 West, Choctaw Meridian, Sunflower County, Mississippi, is described as all of the Grantor’s original 100´ wide right-of-way lying 50´ on either side of the centerline of Grantor’s main tract as originally located and extending southwesterly from the North line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 27 approximately 3629´ as measured along said main tract centerline to a right-of-way width change in Grant Street, Parchman, Mississippi; thence continuing southwesterly of said parcel 200´ wide lying 50´ to the Southeast and 150´ to the Northwest of said main tract centerline 2000´ as measured along said main tract centerline to a right-of-way width change; thence continuing southwesterly of said parcel 100´ wide lying 50´ on either side of said main tract centerline approximately 5213´ as measured along said main tract centerline to the South line of the aforesaid Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 33 and to the West line of the aforesaid Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 3.”

Laws of 1993, ch. 339, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 1993, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Mississippi Department of Corrections is authorized to convey to the United States of America 34.88 acres of state-owned property situated in the NE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 1 West, Hinds County, Mississippi, more particularly described as follows:

“BEGINNING at the NE corner of Section 4, Township 5 North, Range 1 West, Hinds County, Mississippi; run thence with the east boundary of said Section of 4 S 01 degree 06´ 20/” E, 1481.38 feet; thence N 53 degrees 37´ W, 223.1 feet; thence N 56 degrees 28´ 30/” W, 300.0 feet; thence N 59 degrees 20´ W, 300.4 feet; thence N 56 degrees 28´ 39/” W, 200.0 feet; thence N 52 degrees 40´ W, 601.3 feet; thence N 54 degrees 11´ W, 500.4 feet; thence N 56 degrees 28´ 30/” W, 434.2 feet to the north boundary of said Section 4; thence with said north boundary N 89 degrees 28´ 30/” E, 2072.21 feet to the point of beginning, containing 34.88 acres, more or less. Subject to a 27.08 acre easement for Interstate Highway 20. Subject to a 0.29 acre easement for pipelines. This is the same parcel of land conveyed to the United States of America by the City of Jackson, Mississippi, by deed dated November 18, 1983, on record in the Hinds County Real Property Public Records in Book 2954, beginning on page 567.”

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Without waiving the procedural bar to the inmate’s claim that his sentence was unconstitutional, the court held that the inmate was properly charged under Miss. Code Ann. §97-9-45 and entered a plea of guilty to the escape; the sentence of three years was well within the maximum prescribed by the statute, which referred to prisoners sentenced to the Mississippi Department of Corrections and allowed a maximum sentence of five years, and thus the inmate was not entitled to post-conviction relief; although the inmate was in custody and on a work program for a county at the time of the escape, the inmate was considered under the Department’s jurisdiction for purposes of §97-9-45 because (1) the inmate’s original burglary sentence required imprisonment in the “penitentiary” under Miss. Code Ann. §97-17-23, which term meant any facility under the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-3, (2) commitment to any institution within the jurisdiction of the Department was to the Department, not a particular institution pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-110, and (3) under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-541, the Department recommended rules concerning the participation of inmates in work programs. Gardner v. State, 848 So. 2d 900, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 570 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Section99-19-39, which governs the detention of a convict pending appeal, confers no right in a convicted felon to be incarcerated in county jail pending an appeal to the Supreme Court; construing §99-19-39 to create such a right would place that statutory section in conflict with the provisions of §47-5-1 et seq. which create a comprehensive correctional system to deal with the incarceration of all felony offenders; under the comprehensive legislative scheme setting up the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the circuit court sentences to the Department and not to any particular facility, and neither the circuit court nor the Supreme Court can order the Department to return a prisoner duly committed to its custody to county jail as a matter of right. Nicolaou v. State, 596 So. 2d 863, 1992 Miss. LEXIS 133 (Miss. 1992).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 50-55, 58, 59, 60, 62.

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole §§ 45-50, 54, 55.

Cross References —

Youth Court Law, see §§43-21-101 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Laws of 1973, ch. 472, §§ 1-4, eff from and after passage (approved April 12, 1973), provide as follows:

“SECTION 1. The purpose of this legislation is to outline and structure a long-range proposal in addition to certain immediate objectives for improvements at the state penitentiary so as to implement provisions of state law and provide modern and efficient penal facilities.

“The more specific purposes of this legislation are to:

“(a) Provide a time schedule for the orderly, efficient and deliberate construction of new capital facilities and for the renovation of certain existing facilities at the state penitentiary.

“(b) Implement the provisions of section 47-5-5 as enacted by the 1971 Regular Session of the Mississippi Legislature.

“(c) Provide for the maximum internal security of inmates at the state penitentiary by creating a unit of security facilities to aid in phasing out the trusty inmate guard system.

“(d) Unitize supportive functions so as to minimize the basic cost for such facilities and to create an efficient, effective security system in addition to other operations.

“SECTION 2. The intent of the legislature in enacting the provisions of this act is that such provisions, including all construction and renovation, shall be completed and that each of the phases of the development provided in this act shall be accomplished adequately and expeditiously to implement the provisions of this act. New facilities whose construction is authorized by this act shall be constructed on penitentiary lands owned by the state in Sunflower County and implement the provisions of section 47-5-5, as enacted by the 1971 Regular Session of the Mississippi Legislature. It being the intent of the legislature that the state building commission develop and present to the legislature a long-range capital improvements construction plan for the Mississippi State Penitentiary providing for the construction of all facilities in an orderly, contiguous pattern so that all of the vital facilities constructed and utilized will be constructed in the most economical and efficient manner. All facilities located on these tracts shall, where possible, be placed at least one (1) mile apart, but in no event shall they be closer than two-fifths (Cr) of a mile, as provided in section 47-5-5. The facilities which will house security, administrative and supportive systems shall be designated the central complex.

“SECTION 3. The state building commission shall, using funds appropriated by the legislature, federal matching or other federal funds, federal grants, or other available funds from whatever source provided, construct, renovate and make the following improvements at the state penitentiary, provided, however, that the grouping of improvements into phases shall not be construed so as to require the completion of all improvements within a phase before improvements in a subsequent phase may be initiated, except that construction and renovation of the projects in the Phase I shall receive priority over the projects authorized for preplanning in Phase II.

PHASE I “(1) Training Facilities $45,000.00 “(2) Classification and Filing 55,000.00 “(3) Camp Renovation 250,000.00 “(4) Security Building 125,000.00 “(5) Construction of a first offenders camp 700,000.00 “(6) Complete renovation and additional construction to penitentiary hospital at present location 500,000.00 “(7) Central food and service facility to be constructed in connection with central complex 350,000.00 “(8) Security Fencing 100,000.00 “(9) One (1) Maximum security unit 875,000.00 “Total Expenditure for Implementation of Phase I. $3,000,000.00

Click to view

“All of the above to be constructed in accordance with Section 2.

PHASE II-PREPLANNED PROJECTS. “(1) Construction of two (2) medium security inmate facilities. “(2) Development of a new water system and sewerage treatment facility to be used in connection with central complex. “(3) Construction of security fence surrounding entire complex of facilities. “(4) Central laundry facility for prison system. “The projects authorized in Phase II shall be preplanned prior to any construction or renovation. All of the above to be constructed in accordance with section 2. “Provided, however, the state building commission, with the concurrence of the Mississippi Penitentiary Board, or its successor, is hereby authorized to delete line items provided as set out above, and authorized to use the funds released by said deletion to allow construction of facilities at the Mississippi State Penitentiary based on priority, design and identifiable needs. (Amended Laws, 1974, ch. 528, § 1, eff from and after passage (approved April 4, 1974)). “SECTION 4. The Building Commission and the governing authorities of the State Penitentiary shall initiate and complete construction of the limited unitizing facilities at the penitentiary as hereinabove provided, and shall initiate and complete an orderly phaseout of agricultural camps or units for inmate housing so that only those units which may be satisfactorily renovated, as determined by competent engineers and architects, shall be retained. It is the intent of the Legislature that all available materials, equipment, supplies and other facilities, including prison labor, shall be fully utilized in the capital improvements and construction herein authorized.” Laws of 1983, ch. 464, §§ 1-3, effective from and after passage (approved April 5, 1983), provide as follows: “SECTION 1. The State Building Commission or its successor, using any available funds from whatever source, shall: “(a) Construct and equip a 500-man Minimum Housing Unit; “The Minimum Housing Unit location shall be at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi, or at a site selected by the State Building Commission or its successor in Yalobusha County on land which is hereafter donated to the state specifically for the location of such facility .00 9,400,000 “(b) Construct and equip twelve (12) 75-man Community Work Centers as designated by the State Building Commission or its successor .00 6,230,000 “(c) Construct and equip a 505-Capacity Unit that includes the following facilities: “(i) A 130-man and woman Reception and Classification Unit; “(ii) A 250-woman Women’s Housing Unit; “(iii) A 125-man Minimum Housing Unit; “(iv) Necessary support facilities for the entire 505-Capacity Unit; “The facility location shall be at a site selected by the State Building Commission or its successor in any county on land presently owned by the state or on land which is hereafter donated to the state specifically for the location of such a facility .00 25,250,000 “(d) Construct and equip a 172-man Medium Housing Facility and an Alcohol and Drug Education Facility, both located at the existing Unit 26, at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi .00 2,200,000 “(e) Renovate, construct additions and equip existing Units 4, 16, 22 and 23 at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi .00 2,000,000 “(f) Construct improvements to the entire Utility System including wastewater, water, electrical and natural gas at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi .00 2,000,000 “(g) Construct and equip a new administration facility at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman .00 2,000,000 “(h) Renovate and equip old hospital at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi, for use as a minimum housing unit to house approximately 85 inmates .00 1,400,000 “(i) Have as a contingency for project construction and all necessary administrative, legal and other expenses incidental and related to the issuance of any bonds 520,.00 000 “TOTAL $51,000,000.00

Click to view

“If there are excess funds available with respect to any project listed in this section after the contract for such project has been let, such excess funds shall be paid into the Correctional Facilities Construction Fund as created by Section 6, Chapter 542, Laws of 1983, to be expended for the construction of inmate housing facilities as provided in Senate Bill No. 2786, 1986 Regular Session, if such bill is enacted into law; provided, however, if such bill is not enacted into law, then such excess funds shall be transferred to the General Fund in the State Treasury. (Amended by Laws, 1986, ch. 475, eff from and after passage, approved April 14, 1986).

“SECTION 2. (1) The State Building Commission shall not designate the site of a new community work center unless the commission has notified, by certified mail, return receipt requested, each member of the board of supervisors of the county or the governing authorities of the municipality in which the center is to be located. Said board of supervisors or governing authority shall have the opportunity within thirty (30) days after the date of such mailing, but not thereafter, to disapprove the designated site.

“(2) If the Building Commission decides to locate the facilities described in paragraphs (a) or (c) of Section 1 of this act on land which is hereafter donated to the state specifically for the location of such a facility then, prior to the commencement of the construction of such facilities, the board of supervisors of the county in which such land is located shall adopt a resolution calling for an election on the question of constructing the facilities in such county. Such resolution shall be published once a week for at least three (3) consecutive weeks in at least one (1) newspaper published in such county. The first publication of such resolution shall be made not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date fixed in the resolution for the election and the last publication shall be made not more than seven (7) days prior to such date. Such election shall be held, as far as practicable, in the same manner as other elections are held in counties. At such election, all qualified electors of the county may vote, and the ballots used at such election shall have printed thereon a brief statement of the facilities to be constructed and the words “For the construction of the facilities in (here insert county name) County” and “Against the construction of the facilities in (here insert county name) County.” The voter shall vote by placing a cross (x) or check mark (v) opposite his choice on the proposition. When the results of the election on the question of the construction of the facilities shall have been canvassed by the election commissioners of the county and certified by them to the board of supervisors, it shall be the duty of the board of supervisors to determine and adjudicate whether or not a majority of the qualified electors who voted thereon in such election voted in favor of the construction of the facilities in such county. Unless a majority of the qualified electors who voted in such election shall have voted in favor of the construction of the facilities in such county, then such facilities shall not be constructed in such county.

“(3) It is the intent of the Legislature, in cases in which the State Building Commission selects a site for a facility as described in paragraphs (a) or (c) of Section 1 of this act, that no notice to the board of supervisors of the county or the governing authorities of the municipality in which such facility is to be located shall be required other than such notice as may be required pursuant to subsection (2) of this section in regard to lands donated to the state, and there shall be no authority for such board or governing authorities to either approve or disapprove designated sites and/or construction of those facilities described in paragraphs (a) or (c) of Section 1 of this act.

“SECTION 3. No state funds from any source whatsoever shall be expended to purchase land for the location of any of the facilities the construction of which is authorized in this act; but such facilities shall be located upon land which is already owned by the state or upon land which is donated to the state or leased to the state for a nominal consideration for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years specifically for the location of such facilities.”

Laws of 1983, ch. 542, § 6, provides as follows:

“SECTION 6. There is hereby created in the State Treasury a special fund to be designated as the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund’ into which shall be deposited Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) each month beginning August 15, 1983, through July 15, 1984, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) each month beginning August 15, 1984, through November 15, 1986, from sales tax collections. Any monies as may be appropriated by the Legislature shall be deposited by the State Treasurer into the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund.’ The proceeds of the sale of bonds under Senate Bill No. 3038 [Chapter 456], 1987 Regular Session, shall be transferred by the State Bond Commission into the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund.’ Such funds shall be used by the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management of the Office of General Services to defray the costs of the construction, equipping, improvement and renovation of prison facilities pursuant to Senate Bill 2698 [Chapter 464], Regular Session of 1983, Senate Bill No. 2786 [Chapter 502], 1986 Regular Session, and Senate Bill No. 3038 [Chapter 456], 1987 Regular Session. The expenditure of monies out of the Correctional Facilities Construction Fund shall be under the direction of the Office of General Services as spread on its minutes, and such funds shall be paid by the State Treasurer upon warrants issued by the State Fiscal Management Board, which warrants shall be issued upon requisitions signed by the Executive Director of the Office of General Services. Any unencumbered funds in the Correctional Facilities Construction Fund on July 1, 1987, shall be transferred to the State General Fund.” (Amended by Laws, 1986, ch. 502, § 4; 1987, ch. 456, § 17).

Laws of 1986, ch. 502, §§ 1-3, provide as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Office of General Services, using the funds in the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund’ as created in Section 6, Chapter 542, Laws of 1983, shall provide for, by construction, lease, lease-purchase agreement or otherwise and shall equip:

“(a) Housing and necessary support facilities for the number of medium security male inmates as deemed necessary by the Mississippi Board of Corrections, not to exceed five hundred (500) medium security male inmates committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections, at a site selected by the Office of General Services on lands in Greene County, Mississippi;

“(b) Housing and necessary support facilities for the number of maximum security inmates as deemed necessary by the Mississippi Board of Corrections, not to exceed one thousand (1,000) maximum security inmates at the State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi;

“(c) Laundry and kitchen facilities and associated access roads at the State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi;

“(d) Renovation/upgrading of existing security facilities at the State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi;

“(e) Upgrading of existing support systems at the State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi, including wastewater system improvements, water system improvements, fire protection water system improvements, dry storage, telephone system improvements and renovation of the old administration building; and

“(f) Building materials and supplies for inmate construction program projects.”

(Amended by Laws, 1987, ch. 456, § 4).

“SECTION 2. (1) Upon the selection of a proposed site for the inmate housing facilities described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 1 of this act, the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management of the Office of General Services shall notify the board of supervisors of the county or counties in which such facility is proposed to be located and shall publish a notice as hereinafter set forth in a newspaper having general circulation in such county. Such notice shall include a description of the tract of land in the county whereon the facility is proposed to be located, the nature and size of the facility and the date on which the determination of the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management shall be final as to the location of such facility, which date shall not be less than forty-five (45) days following the first publication of such notice. Such notice shall include a brief summary of the provisions of this section pertaining to the petition for an election on the question of the location of the inmate housing facility in such county. Such notice shall be published not less than one (1) time each week for at least three (3) consecutive weeks in at least one (1) newspaper published in such county.

“If no petition requesting an election is filed prior to the date of final determination stated in such notice, then the bureau shall give final approval to the location of such facilities.

“If at any time prior to the aforesaid date a petition signed by twenty percent (20%), or fifteen hundred (1500), whichever is less, of the qualified electors of the county involved shall be filed with the board of supervisors requesting that an election be called on the question of locating such facilities, then the board of supervisors shall adopt a resolution calling an election to be held within such county upon the question of the location of such facilities. Such election shall be held, as far as practicable, in the same manner as other elections are held in counties. At such election, all qualified electors of the county may vote, and the ballots used at such election shall have printed thereon a brief statement of the facilities to be constructed and the words “For the construction of the facilities in (here insert county name) County” and “Against the construction of the facilities in (here insert county name) County.” The voter shall vote by placing a cross (x) or check mark (v) opposite his choice on the proposition. When the results of the election on the question of the construction of the facilities shall have been canvassed by the election commissioners of the county and certified by them to the board of supervisors, it shall be the duty of the board of supervisors to determine and adjudicate whether or not a majority of the qualified electors who voted thereon in such election voted in favor of the construction of the facilities in such county. Unless a majority of the qualified electors who voted in such election shall have voted in favor of the construction of the facilities in such county, then such facilities shall not be constructed in such county. The provisions of this subsection shall stand repealed from and after June 30, 1988.

“(2) Before any funds shall be expended under Section 1 for the construction of such correctional facilities, the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management, with cooperation of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, shall utilize inmates for construction to the extent such labor is available. The Mississippi Department of Corrections shall determine and provide to the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management, the name, the number and construction skills of inmates, and shall also provide security officers to be in attendance during all hours when inmates are involved in construction. When necessary construction skills are not available from the inmate population, the Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management may contract with private contractors or mechanics to perform necessary construction work.”

[SECTION 3. Repealed by its own terms from and after June 30, 1988.].

Laws of 1987, ch. 456, §§ 1-3, 5-16, provide as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that:

“(a) The overcrowding of state prisoners in county jails has plagued the sheriffs, the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the Legislature for a decade.

“(b) In 1987, for the first time in history, the Mississippi Department of Corrections has over 7,000 inmates in its custody, with over 1,200 state inmates in local jails.

“(c) During the past decade, the Legislature has appropriated over $31,000,000.00 in payments to the sheriffs for housing state prisoners, while over 1,000 new prison beds could have been constructed with such funds.

“(d) The most pressing physical facility need at this time is for a substantial increase in the number of maximum security housing at Parchman, inasmuch as Mississippi’s percentage of maximum security inmate beds is less than the national average; and

“(e) The Mississippi Department of Corrections is in need of a comprehensive, long-term construction program.

“SECTION 2. As used in this act, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed herein unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

“(a) ‘General obligation bonds’ shall mean bonds of the State of Mississippi, to the repayment of which, both as to principal and interest, the full faith, credit and taxing power of the State of Mississippi are irrevocably pledged until the principal and interest is paid in full.

“(b) ‘Office of General Services’ or ‘office’ shall mean the Governor’s Office of General Services, acting through its Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management.

“(c) ‘State Fiscal Management Board’ shall mean the membership of the State Fiscal Management Board acting in their capacity as the state’s Public Procurement Review Board, as provided in Section 27-104-7, Mississippi Code of 1972.

“SECTION 3. The Office of General Services shall have the power and is hereby authorized, at one time or from time to time, with the approval of the State Fiscal Management Board spread upon its minutes, to declare the necessity for issuance of negotiable general obligation bonds of the State of Mississippi in an aggregate amount not to exceed Fifty-six Million Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($56,650,000.00) to provide funds for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of constructing and equipping the correctional facilities authorized under Section 1, Chapter 502, Laws of 1986, (supra, this note) as amended by this act.

“SECTION 5. (1) In the construction of the correctional facilities described in Section 4 of this act, the Office of General Services, in conjunction with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, shall utilize inmates for construction to the extent such labor is available. The Mississippi Department of Corrections shall: establish, maintain and implement a program for training and utilizing inmates in construction projects; determine and provide to the Office of General Services the name, the number and construction skills of inmates; and provide security officers to be in attendance during all hours when inmates are involved in construction. When necessary construction skills are not available from the inmate population, the Office of General Services may contract with private contractors or mechanics to perform necessary construction work.

“(2) In the planning, design, procurement and construction of the facilities described in Section 4 of this act, the Office of General Services shall make maximum utilization of plans and specifications prepared for, and processes employed in, completed or on-going construction projects for the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

“SECTION 6. Upon the adoption of a resolution by the Office of General Services and the State Fiscal Management Board declaring the necessity for the issuance of any part or all of the general obligation bonds authorized by this act, the office shall deliver a certified copy of such resolution or resolutions to the State Bond Commission. Upon the receipt of same, the State Bond Commission shall act as the issuing agent, prescribe the form of the bonds, advertise for and accept bids, issue and sell the bonds so authorized to be sold, pay all fees and costs incurred in such issuance and sale, and do any and all other things necessary and advisable in connection with the issuance and sale of such bonds. For the payment of such bonds and the interest thereon, the full faith, credit and taxing power of the State of Mississippi are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the Legislature shall find that there are funds available in the General Fund of the Treasury of the State of Mississippi in amounts sufficient to pay maturity, principal and accruing interest of such general obligation bonds and if the Legislature shall appropriate such available funds for the purpose of paying such maturity, principal and accruing interest, then the principal, maturity and accruing interest of such bonds shall be paid from appropriations made from the General Fund of the Treasury of the State of Mississippi by the Legislature thereof; but if there are not available sufficient funds in the General Fund of the Treasury of the State of Mississippi to pay the maturity, principal and accruing interest of such bonds, or if such funds are available and the Legislature should fail to appropriate a sufficient amount thereof to pay such principal and accruing interest as the same becomes due, then, and in that event, there shall annually be levied upon all taxable property within the State of Mississippi an ad valorem tax at a rate sufficient to provide the funds required to pay the bonds at maturity and the interest thereon as the same accrues. Such bonds shall bear such date or dates, be in such denomination or denominations, bear interest at such rate or rates, be payable at such place or places within or without the State of Mississippi, shall mature absolutely at such time or times, be redeemable prior to maturity at such time or times and upon such terms, with or without premium, shall bear such registration privileges, and shall be substantially in such form, all as shall be determined by resolution of the State Bond Commission. Such bonds shall be signed by the Chairman of the State Bond Commission or by his facsimile signature, and the official seal of the State Bond Commission shall be affixed thereto, attested by the Secretary of the State Bond Commission. The interest coupons to be attached to such bonds may be executed by the facsimile signatures of such officers. Whenever any such bonds shall have been signed by the officials herein designated to sign the bonds who were in office at the time of such signing but who may have ceased to be such officers prior to the sale and delivery of such bonds, or who may not have been in office on the date such bonds may bear, the signatures of such officers upon such bonds and coupons shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes and have the same effect as if the person so officially signing such bonds had remained in office until the delivery of the same to the purchaser or had been in office on the date such bonds may bear.

“SECTION 7. All general obligation bonds of the State of Mississippi and interest coupons issued under the provisions of this act shall have and are hereby declared to have all the qualities and incidents of negotiable instruments under the negotiable instruments law of the State of Mississippi. Such bonds and the income therefrom shall be exempt from all taxation within the State of Mississippi.

“SECTION 8. The State Bond Commission may sell such bonds in such manner and for such price as it may determine to be for the best interest of the State of Mississippi, but no such sale shall be made at a price less than par plus accrued interest to date of delivery of the bonds to the purchaser. Notice of the sale of any such bonds shall be published at least one time not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of sale and shall be so published in one or more newspapers having a general circulation in the City of Jackson and in one or more other newspapers or financial journals as may be directed by the State Bond Commission.

“SECTION 9. Upon the issuance and sale of such bonds, the State Bond Commission shall transfer the proceeds of any such sale or sales to the special fund in the State Treasury known as the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund.’ The proceeds of such bonds shall be used solely for the payment of the cost of the project or combined projects described in Section 4 of this act, which shall include costs incident to the issuance and sale of such bonds, and shall be disbursed solely (as provided in Section 17 of this act) under such restrictions, if any, as may be contained in the resolution providing for the issuance of the bonds, except that the fees and costs incident to the issuance and sale of such bonds shall be disbursed by warrant upon requisition of the State Bond Commission, signed by the Governor.

“SECTION 10. Any holder of bonds issued under the provisions of this act or of any of the interest coupons pertaining thereto may, either at law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or other proceeding, protect and enforce any and all rights granted hereunder, or under such resolution, and may enforce and compel performance of all duties required by this act to be performed, in order to provide for the payment of bonds and interest thereon.

“SECTION 11. Such general obligation bonds may be issued without any other proceedings or the happening of any other conditions or things than those proceedings, conditions and things which are specified or required by this act. Any resolution providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds under the provisions of this act shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the State Bond Commission, and any such resolution may be adopted at any regular, special or adjourned meeting of the State Bond Commission by a majority of its members.

“The bonds authorized under the authority of this act may, in the discretion of the State Bond Commission, be validated in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, in the manner and with the force and effect provided now or hereafter by Chapter 13, Title 31, Mississippi Code of 1972, for the validation of county, municipal, school district and other bonds. The necessary papers for such validation proceedings shall be transmitted to the State Bond Commission, and the required notice shall be published in a newspaper published in the City of Jackson, Mississippi.

“SECTION 12. All bonds issued under the provisions of this act shall be legal investments for trustees and other fiduciaries, and for savings banks, trust companies and insurance companies organized under the laws of the State of Mississippi, and such bonds shall be legal securities which may be deposited with and shall be received by all public officers and bodies of this state and all municipalities and political subdivisions for the purpose of securing the deposit of public funds.

“SECTION 13. This act shall be deemed to be full and complete authority for the exercise of the powers herein granted, but this act shall not be deemed to repeal or to be in derogation of any existing law of this state whereunder projects of the character herein defined may be constructed or financed.

“SECTION 14. The funds which are transferred from the sale of bonds under this act to the special fund in the State Treasury known as the ‘Correctional Facilities Construction Fund’ may be withdrawn only in the manner provided in Section 17 of this act; provided, however, that warrants for the payment of costs incident to the issuance and sale of bonds shall be issued upon requisition by the State Bond Commission, signed by the Governor. The office shall submit a full report of its work and all the transactions carried on by it, and a complete statement of all its expenditures at the next regular session of the Legislature.

“SECTION 15. The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi shall represent the State Bond Commission in issuing, selling and validating bonds herein provided for, and the State Bond Commission is hereby authorized and empowered to expend such sums as may be necessary and appropriate from the proceeds derived from the sale of the bonds authorized hereunder to pay for the cost of approving attorney’s fees, validating, printing and cost of delivery of bonds authorized under this act.

“SECTION 16. Pending the issuance of bonds of the state as authorized under this act, when funds are insufficient to cover expenditures for construction, equipping, improvement and renovation authorized in Section 4 of this act, the State Bond Commission, upon receipt of a resolution from the Executive Director of the Office of General Services, approved by the State Fiscal Management Board, declaring the necessity for the borrowing of money to cover such expenditures, is authorized and empowered to borrow funds from banks located in the State of Mississippi, or from special funds in the State Treasury, by the issuance of notes, which shall include other certificates of indebtedness, of the State of Mississippi in an amount sufficient to cover such expenditures; however, the principal amount of such notes shall not exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) in the aggregate. Such notes shall mature not longer than ten (10) years from the date issued and shall not bear a greater overall maximum interest rate to maturity than that allowed for general obligation bonds under Section 75-17-101, Mississippi Code of 1972. The State Bond Commission shall pay all expenses, premiums and commissions which may be necessary or advantageous in connection with the issuance of such notes, but solely from the proceeds of such notes, by warrant issued upon requisition of the State Bond Commission signed by the Governor. The proceeds of such notes shall be deposited in the Correctional Facilities Construction Fund and disbursed therefrom as provided in Section 17 of this act. Payment of the principal of and interest on the notes shall be made from any revenues made available therefor by the Legislature and shall be secured additionally by the full faith and credit of the State of Mississippi.”

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Sovereign immunity.

1. In general.

There is a constitutional requirement for state defendants, in a suit by prison inmates for certain prison reforms, to establish certain timetables for and proceed to implement (a) adequate medical facilities and services, and (b) the reduction of overcrowding of prison inmates at residential camps as well as the elimination of those residential camps unfit for human habitation. Gates v. Collier, 390 F. Supp. 482, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056 (N.D. Miss. 1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 965, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13465 (5th Cir. 1976).

An opinion in a class action brought by inmates of the state penitentiary against the superintendent of the penitentiary, members of the Mississippi Penitentiary Board, and the governor (joined in by the United States as plaintiff intervenor) describes in some detail the undesirable and unconstitutional conditions existing at the penitentiary. The trial court granted both prohibitory and affirmative relief to ensure compliance with the court’s orders. Gates v. Collier, 349 F. Supp. 881, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12007 (N.D. Miss. 1972), aff'd, 501 F.2d 1291, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6790 (5th Cir. Miss. 1974), amended, 390 F. Supp. 482, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056 (N.D. Miss. 1975).

2. Sovereign immunity.

Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) was considered an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity because state statute, Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-1 et. seq., considered the MDOC an arm of the state; additionally, the MDOC was funded by the state. The department was responsible for the confinement of prisoners throughout the state; it apparently had the authority to sue and be sued in its own name, and, finally, it was authorized by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-5 to hold and use property. Morgan v. Mississippi, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74001 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2008), amended, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55347 (S.D. Miss. June 16, 2009).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 10.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-6 related to the establishment of a correctional facility for first offenders.

A former §47-5-6 [Laws, 1975, ch. 482; Repealed by Laws, 1976, ch. 440, § 92, eff from and after July 1, 1976] related to the establishment of a correctional facility for first offenders.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment deleted “hereby” preceding “created” at the beginning of (1); in (2)(b), substituted “Corrections” for “Services” following “Community” thrice; and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

Cross References —

Effect of any member of a board, commission, council or authority changing domicile after appointment, see §7-13-9.

Supervision by staff personnel of division of community services of offenders granted probation, parole or executive clemency, see §47-7-5.

Duties of field supervisors and presentence investigators within division of community services, see §47-7-9.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The Department of Corrections has no duty to provide the Parole Board with information and has no control over parole decisions. Thus, the department had no duty to a victim assaulted by a paroled prisoner. Grantham v. Mississippi Dep't of Corrections, 522 So. 2d 219, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 117 (Miss. 1988).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 2 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-9 required the Legislature at each session to appropriate funds for the yearly maintenance of the penitentiary and prisoners.

Editor's Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Laws of 2013, ch. 524, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. (1) There is hereby created the Corrections and Criminal Justice Task Force to undertake a comprehensive review of the state's corrections system and criminal justice system. The task force shall be comprised of twenty-one (21) members, as follows:

“(a) The Chairpersons of the Corrections Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives or their designees;

“(b) The Chairpersons of the Judiciary 'B' Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives or their designees;

“(c) The Lieutenant Governor or a designee;

“(d) The Speaker of the House of Representatives or a designee;

“(e) The Commissioner of Corrections or a designee;

“(f) The Attorney General or a designee;

“(g) A state Supreme Court justice or Court of Appeals judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(h) A state circuit court judge who presides over a certified drug court, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(i) A state justice court judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(j) A state county court judge, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Mississippi;

“(k) A county public defender, appointed by the Governor;

“( l ) The Director of the Capital Defense Counsel within the Office of the State Public Defender or a designee;

“(m) A member of the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association appointed by its executive director;

“(n) A district attorney or an assistant district attorney, appointed by the Attorney General;

“(o) A member of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors, chosen by the Executive Director of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors;

“(p) A member representing the Southern Poverty Law Center appointed by the Managing Attorney for Mississippi;

“(q) A member of the Mississippi Association for Justice appointed by its executive committee president;

“(r) A member of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police appointed by its executive board president; and

“(s) The President of the Mississippi Prosecutors Association or a designee.

“(2) The appointed members of the task force must be appointed within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this act. The members shall be a part of the task force for the life of the task force. Any vacancy in the task force shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner prescribed above. The task force shall hold its first meeting within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this act, on the call of the Commissioner of Corrections. At the first meeting, the task force shall elect from among its membership a permanent chairperson and any other officers, if any, determined to be necessary. A majority of the membership of the task force shall constitute a quorum, and shall meet at the call of the chairperson, or upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the task force. All members must be notified in writing of all meetings at least five (5) days before the date on which a meeting of the task force is scheduled.

“(3) The task force shall study and make recommendations for improving the relationship between the corrections system and the criminal justice system in Mississippi. In making those recommendations, the task force shall:

“(a) Undertake a comprehensive review of all areas of the state's corrections system, including state, local and tribal governments' corrections practices and policies regarding sentencing guidelines;

“(b) Review the total number of offender populations in Mississippi correctional facilities to determine which offenders receive or serve differing sentences for the same crimes, enumerating any discrepancies in sentencing for conviction of the same crimes and documenting the percentage of offenders whose sentence was a result of mandatory minimum sentencing;

“(c) Make findings regarding such review and recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices and laws designed to prevent, deter and reduce crime and violence, reduce recidivism, improve cost-effectiveness and ensure the interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice system;

“(d) Identify critical problems in the criminal justice system and assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of state and local funds in the criminal justice system;

“(e) Consult with state, local and tribal government and nongovernmental leaders, including law enforcement officials, legislators, judges, court administrators, prosecutors, defense counsel, probation and parole officials, criminal justice planners, criminologists, civil rights and liberties organizations, formerly incarcerated individuals and corrections officials; and

“(f) Conduct a comprehensive review of the drug court programs, intensive supervision programs and any other alternative incarceration programs utilized in the state and provide detailed recommendations regarding the appropriate funding to support those programs.

“The Mississippi Department of Corrections shall provide appropriate staff support to assist the task force in carrying out its duties. The Commissioner of Corrections shall designate an appropriate employee to act as a point of contact for the provision of staff support to the task force. In addition, the task force may consult with employees of any state agency or department necessary to accomplish the task force's responsibilities under this section.

“(4) The task force shall prepare and submit a final report that contains a detailed statement of findings, conclusions and recommendations of the task force to the Legislature, the Governor and to local and tribal governments by December 31, 2013. It is the intention of the Legislature that, given the importance of the matters before the task force, the task force should work toward unanimously supported findings and recommendations and the task force shall state the vote total for each recommendation contained in its report to the Legislature. The report submitted under this subsection shall be made available to the public.

“The recommendations for improving the relationship between the corrections system and the criminal justice system in Mississippi may include proposals for specific statutory changes for improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and methods to foster cooperation among state agencies and between the state and local governments. The task force shall be abolished upon submission of the report to the Governor and the Legislature.”

Laws of 2015, ch. 474, § 1, effective April 22, 2015, provides:

“SECTION 1. (1) The Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration is authorized to convey and transfer without compensation all of the rights, title and interest in certain state-owned real property and improvements located at 421 West Pascagoula Street in the City of Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi, to the Mississippi Department of Corrections, subject to the requirements of Section 29-1-1(1).”

“(2) The state-owned real property to be conveyed and transferred under the provisions of this act is the same as was acquired by the State of Mississippi for the use and benefit of” the Department of Finance and Administration as authorized under Section 16 of Chapter 87, Laws of 2003, Section 27-104-107, and as authorized by resolution of the State Bond Commission on June 21, 2004, resolution of the Department of Finance and Administration on June 18, 2004, and Resolution of the Mississippi Public Procurement Board at a special meeting on June 15, 2004. The real property herein described lying and being situated in the City of Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi, and recorded in Deed Book 6071 at Page 430 in the Chancery Clerk's Office of Hinds County, Mississippi, is more particularly described as:

“Tract 1

“A certain parcel of land lying and being situated in Lot 28, Miscellaneous Lots in West Jackson of H.C. Daniels Map of 1875 and being more particularly described as follows:

“Commencing at the intersection of the South line of Pascagoula Street with the West right-of-way of Gallatin Street; thence run Southerly along the said West right-of-way line for 46.2 feet being the Point of Beginning; run thence Southerly along said right-of-way of Gallatin Street for 96.4 feet; thence turn right 90° 11´ and run Westerly for 342.96 feet; thence turn right 89° 48´ and run Northerly 94.5 feet; thence turn right 89° 43´ and run Easterly 342.2 feet to the Point of Beginning; being all of said Lot 28 except formerly given for right-of-way widening of Gallatin Street.

“TRACT 2

“A certain lot or parcel of land in Lot 27 of H.C. Daniels Map of 1875 of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, and more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows, to-wit: .

“Beginning at a point on the West line of Gallatin Street and South Line of Pascagoula Street, thence run South for 46.2 feet; thence West 342.2 feet; thence North 45.5 feet; thence East 342.2 feet to the Point of Beginning which is a part of Lot 27 Miscellaneous Numbers of West Jackson. LESS AND EXCEPT:

“Begin at a point that is 305.4 feet West of the West right-of-way of Gallatin Street and the South right-of-way of Pascagoula Street as now laid out and presently in use, thence run South for 45.57 feet; thence West for 36.5 feet; thence run North for 45.5 feet; thence run East for 36.5 feet to the Point of Beginning, said parcel containing 0.038 acres more or less and being a part of Lot 27 Miscellaneous Numbers of West Jackson, Hinds County, Mississippi.

“AND, LESS AND EXCEPT:

“The following described land and property being situated in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 3, Township 5 North Range 1 East, Hinds County, Mississippi, and being part of Miscellaneous Lot 27, West Jackson, According to the Daniels Map of 1875 to wit:

“Beginning at the Northeast Corner of the property described in Deed Book 3486 at Page 518, said corner being the intersection of the West right-of-way line of Gallatin Street and the South right-of-way line of Pascagoula Street; thence run Southward along the West right-of-way line of Gallatin Street for 32 feet; thence run Northwesterly for 41 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Pascagoula Street; thence run Easterly along the South right-of-way line of Pascagoula Street for 25 feet back to the Point of Beginning, said parcel containing 400 square feet more or less.”

Laws of 2016, ch. 444, § 1, provides:

“SECTION 1. (1) The Department of Finance and Administration, acting on behalf of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, is authorized to convey and transfer certain real property to the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen of the Town of Walnut Grove, Mississippi. The property is located in Leake County, Mississippi, and more particularly described as follows:

[For a complete description of the property, see Chapter 444, Laws of 2016.]

“(2) The Department of Finance and Administration may correct any discrepancies in the legal description of the property provided in this section.

“(3) The State of Mississippi shall retain all mineral rights to the real property conveyed and transferred under this section.”

Laws of 2018, ch. 449, § 2, effective July 1, 2018, provides:

“SECTION 2.(1) The Department of Finance and Administration, acting on behalf of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, is authorized to convey and transfer certain real property to the governing authorities of the City of Corinth, Mississippi, and Alcorn County, Mississippi. The property is located in Alcorn County, Mississippi, and more particularly described as follows:

“[For complete property description, see Section 2 of Chapter 449, Laws of 2018.]

“(2) The Department of Finance and Administration may correct any discrepancies in the legal description of the property provided in this section.

“(3) The State of Mississippi shall retain all mineral rights to the real property conveyed and transferred under this section.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment added (e)(i) through (e)(iii).

The 2014 amendment inserted “technical violation centers,” in the middle of the last sentence in (h); added (r) and redesignated remaining subsection accordingly; and made minor punctuation changes.

Cross References —

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Administration of community service restitution program by department of corrections, see §§99-20-1 et seq.

Technical violation centers, see §47-7-38.1.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The Department of Corrections has no duty to provide the Parole Board with information and has no control over parole decisions. Thus, the department had no duty to a victim assaulted by a paroled prisoner. Grantham v. Mississippi Dep't of Corrections, 522 So. 2d 219, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 117 (Miss. 1988).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 2 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

A former §47-5-11 related to the appointment, terms of office and qualifications of members of the Mississippi Penitentiary Board.

A former §47-5-11. (Laws, 1964, ch. 378, § 4; Repealed by Laws of 1976, ch. 440, § 92, eff from and after July 1, 1976).

Cross References —

Oversight Task Force, see §47-5-6.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-12 created the board of corrections.

Laws of 1988, ch. 504, § 1, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Mississippi Board of Corrections is hereby abolished and all power, authority, duties and functions of such board shall hereafter vest in and be performed by the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The terms ‘Mississippi Board of Corrections,’ ‘Board of Corrections’ and ‘board’ appearing in the laws in connection with the performance of the board’s functions transferred to the Mississippi Department of Corrections shall be the Department of Corrections, and more particularly such words or terms shall mean the Mississippi Department of Corrections whenever they appear.”

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-13 related to the compensation and bond of members of The Mississippi Penitentiary Board.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-14 provided compensation for the Mississippi Board of Corrections.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-15 related to meetings of the penitentiary board.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-16 related to meetings of the Board of Corrections.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-17 related to the organization of the penitentiary board, board officers, and clerical assistance for the board.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-18 related to the organization of the Board of Corrections, board officers, and clerical assistance for the board.

Former §47-5-19 provided for the transfer of the powers and duties of the penitentiary board to the board of corrections.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Laws of 1986, ch. 491, § 1, eff from and after passage (approved April 15, 1986), provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Mississippi Board of Corrections is hereby authorized to convey the right-of-way on the grounds of the Mississippi State Penitentiary, as is hereinafter described, exclusive of gas, water, mineral and subsurface rights, to Sunflower County, Mississippi, for the purpose of completing the Federal Aid Public Road Project No. RS-2847(2)B- Lombardy Road. Said specific right-of-way is described as follows:

“4.794 acres, more or less, located in Section 15, Township 24 North, Range 4 West, Sunflower County, Mississippi, and more particularly described as follows:

“Begin at a point on the centerline of the Lombardy Road at Station 512+89.14, with said point being the Southwest corner of Section 15; thence North 00 degrees 33´36/” East 410.86 feet to Station 517+ 00 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 24´30/” curve to the left a distance 399.97 feet to Station 520+ 99.97 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 24´30/” curve to the right a distance 399.97 feet to Station 524+99.94 along the said centerline; thence North 00 degrees 33´36/” East 2,672.71 feet to Station 551+72.65 along the said centerline; thence around a 00 degrees 30´00/” curve to the left at a distance 248.67 feet to Station 554+21.32 along the said centerline; thence North 00 degrees 41´00/” West 578.68 feet to Station 560+ 00 along the said centerline; thence West 10 feet to Station 560+00 thence North 00 degrees 41´00/” West 100 feet to Station 561+ 00; thence East 10 feet to Station 561+00, thence North 00 degrees 41´00/” West 410 feet to Station 565+10 along the said centerline; thence West 80 feet to Station 565+10; thence South 00 degrees 41’00” East 1,688.68 feet to Station 554+21.32; thence around a 00 degrees 30´00/” curve to the right a distance 248.67 feet to Station 551+72.65; thence South 00 degrees 33´36/” West 2,672.71 feet to Station 524+99.94; thence around a 00 degrees 24´30/” curve to the left a distance 399.97 feet to Station 520+99.97; thence around a 00 degrees 24´30/” curve to the right at a distance 399.97 feet to Station 517+00.00; thence South 00 degrees 33´36/” West 410.86 feet to Station 512+89.14; thence West 40.00 feet to Station 512+89.14 to the said centerline and the Point of Beginning.

“Less and Except: 2.996 acres, more or less, existing road right-of-way.

“The Attorney General shall assist in the preparation of legal documents necessary to transfer said right-of-way under the terms specified herein.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2016 amendment added (e).

Cross References —

Provisions providing that the state fiscal management board, acting through the bureau of budget and fiscal management, shall be the department of public accounts formerly in the office of the state auditor of public accounts, see §§7-7-2 et seq.

State fiscal management board, see §§27-104-1 et seq.

Further powers and duties of the commissioner, see §47-5-28.

Agreements to transfer state offenders to federal facilities, see §47-5-175.

Powers of board relating to penitentiary-made goods program, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

State board of corrections recommending rules and regulations concerning participation of state inmates in public service work programs, see §47-5-401.

State board’s approval required of rules governing participation of state inmates in joint state-county public service work programs, see §47-5-405.

Authority of state board of corrections to delegate functions relative to joint state-county public service work programs, see §47-5-419.

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 2 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-21 authorized the removal of members of the board of corrections for cause.

Cross References —

Oath of employees of correctional system, see §47-5-41.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

I. Under Current Law.

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use].

II. Under Former Law.

6. In general.

I. Under Current Law.

1. In general.

In damages action brought by former inmate alleging, inter alia, breach of duty imposed by this section and by §§47-5-1 and47-5-45 [repealed], the court’s recognition of an immunity defense for the superintendents and the assistant superintendent, raised with regard to a cause of action brought under 42 USCS § 1983, was dispositive of this claim as well; simple negligence in the performance of the superintendents’ duties was not sufficient to support their liability for money damages for injuries suffered in prison by the plaintiff. Bogard v. Cook, 405 F. Supp. 1202, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15354 (N.D. Miss. 1975), aff'd, 586 F.2d 399, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 6984 (5th Cir. Miss. 1978).

The district court’s findings that conditions at the Mississippi State Penitentiary denied inmates proper care, treatment, and feeding as required by statute, and the relief therein ordered, were affirmed. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6790 (5th Cir. Miss. 1974).

There is a constitutional requirement for state defendants, in a suit by prison inmates for certain prison reforms, to establish certain time-tables for and proceed to implement (a) adequate medical facilities and services, and (b) the reduction of overcrowding of prison inmates at residential camps as well as the elimination of those residential camps unfit for human habitation. Gates v. Collier, 390 F. Supp. 482, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056 (N.D. Miss. 1975), aff'd, 525 F.2d 965, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13465 (5th Cir. 1976).

Mississippi recognizes that its prisoners must be afforded civilized treatment, imposing on the penitentiary superintendent the general common law duty of the custodian of a prisoner to take proper care of him, and civil rights protestors, who were detained in the Mississippi penitentiary merely for the purpose of holding them for trial, with male prisoners required to strip naked and remain in such state for up to 32 hours and detained in cells with inadequate hygienic facilities and no bedding, and with female prisoners required to strip to their undergarments and permitted to have no personal belongings including medicine or sanitary napkins and given quantities of laxatives, and who brought an action against state and municipal authorities, were subjected to inhuman treatment in violation of this statute. Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11905 (5th Cir. Miss. 1971), modified, 456 F.2d 835, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10947 (5th Cir. Miss. 1972).

The superintendent of a state prison farm, vested with exclusive management and control thereof by virtue of Code 1942, § 7930, who inflicted cruel and unusual punishment upon civil rights demonstrators charged with parading without a permit who had not been arraigned or tried for the offense charged, violated 42 USCS § 1983. Anderson v. Nosser, 438 F.2d 183, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11905 (5th Cir. Miss. 1971), modified, 456 F.2d 835, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 10947 (5th Cir. Miss. 1972).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use].

II. Under Former Law.

6. In general.

The superintendent of the state penitentiary is granted by statute exclusive management and control of the prison system. Morgan v. Cook, 236 So. 2d 749, 1970 Miss. LEXIS 1501 (Miss. 1970).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Wrongful discharge based on public policy derived from professional ethics codes. 52 A.L.R.5th 405.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4, 5, 7, 18.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 6 et seq.

Cross References —

Bond of public officers generally, see §§25-1-13 et seq.

Bond of auditor for correctional system, see §47-5-35.

Commissioner as director of nonprofit corporation formed to manage prison industries, see §47-5-541.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Section 47-5-24, provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Corrections by the Governor at any time in the normal course of events. Smith, February 16, 1995, A.G. Op. #95-0067.

No provision in Section 7-1-35 or in Section 47-5-24 provides for an interim appointment of a Commissioner of Corrections. The statutes make no distinction between an interim appointment and a permanent appointment and, in fact, do not contemplate two different types of appointment. Smith, February 16, 1995, A.G. Op. #95-0067.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 18.

63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees §§ 487, 488.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 13, 15-16, 115.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-25 related to the qualifications, compensation and authority of the superintendent of the prison system and to the classification of prisoners.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment inserted “who” preceding “shall” near the end of the first sentence in (1)(a); in (b), substituted “Deputy Commissioner for Community Corrections” for “deputy commissioner for community services,” at the beginning of the first sentence, and substituted “shall” for “to” preceding “serve” near the end of the first sentence, substituted “Corrections” for “Services” following “Community” in the second, third, fourth, and sixth sentences, and inserted “some” preceding “related” in clause (i) of the seventh sentence; substituted “shall” for “to” preceding “serve” in the first sentence of (c); and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

The 2014 amendment inserted “technical violation centers,” in the first sentence of (1)(b).

The 2016 amendment added (5).

Cross References —

State Parole Board, see §47-7-5.

Technical violation centers, see §47-7-38.1.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 18 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 12.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-27 related to the surety bond of superintendent and other officers and employees of the prison system.

Amendment Notes —

The 2014 amendment added (e) and redesignated the remaining subsections accordingly; and made minor punctuation changes in (c) and (h).

The 2016 amendment added (h), and redesignated former (h) and (i).

Cross References —

Further powers and duties of the commissioner, see §47-5-20.

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 18 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 14.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-29 related to the removal of the superintendent by the penitentiary board.

Amendment Notes —

The 2009 amendment deleted “the State Auditor” following “House Penitentiary Committee” in (3).

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration.”

Cross References —

Requirement that probationer submit to a chemical analysis test to detect presence of alcohol or controlled substance as condition of probation, see §47-7-35.

Cross References —

Bonds of public officers generally, see §§25-1-13 et seq.

Joint Legislative Budget Committee and Legislative Budget Office, generally, see §§27-103-101 et seq.

Public purchasing practices, see §31-7-11.

Bidding requirements for public purchases, see §31-7-13.

Bond of Commissioner of Corrections, see §47-5-24.

Remission to State Treasurer of funds belonging to correctional system, and payment of bills and accounts of correctional system, see §47-5-77.

How purchases are to be made, see §47-5-79.

Prohibition on sale of oil or gasoline, see §47-5-87.

Entry of bids, bills, and invoices in minutes before award or payment, see §47-5-105.

Cancellation of contracts upon finding of fact of auditor for the correctional system, see §47-5-107.

Audit of penitentiary-made goods, see §47-5-319.

Penalty for offering or receiving kickbacks, see §97-11-53.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Public officer’s bond as subject to forfeiture for malfeasance in office. 4 A.L.R.2d 1348.

Differences in character or quality of materials, articles, or work as affecting acceptance of bid for public contract. 27 A.L.R.2d 917.

Right of public authorities to reject all bids for public work or contract. 31 A.L.R.2d 469.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 9.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Oath of employees of correctional system, see §47-5-41.

Editor’s Notes —

A former §47-5-39 provided for the employment of a prison physician, a dentist, a psychiatrist and nurses, their compensation and residences, and provided that prison employees and dependents are entitled to free medical and dental care.

A former §47-5-39 [Laws, 1964, ch. 378, § 41; Laws, 1966, ch. 380, § 1; Laws, 1971, ch. 524, § 9; Laws, 1973, ch. 320, § 1; Laws, 1974, ch. 539, § 9; Laws, 1975, ch. 425; Repealed by Laws, of 1976, ch. 440, § 92, eff from and after July 1, 1976] provided for the employment of a prison physician, a dentist, a psychiatrist and nurses, their compensation and residences, and provided that prison employees and dependents are entitled to free medical and dental care.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees §§ 124 et seq.

CJS.

67 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees § 46.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-45 related to qualifications of sergeants, guards and drivers, applications for employment, and uniforms.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity, construction, and effect of state constitutional or statutory provision regarding nepotism in the public service. 11 A.L.R.4th 826.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Prohibited conduct.

Trial court erred in overturning the denial of unemployment benefits to a corrections employee who was terminated where the employee admitted to distributing bootleg copies of DVDs to coworkers while at work, in violation of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-49; employee also admitted knowing that distributing bootleg copies of DVDs was illegal under Miss. Code Ann. §97-23-87(3)(a)(i) and Miss. Code Ann. §97-23-89(2). Miss. Dep't of Corr. v. Scott, 929 So. 2d 975, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 376 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-51 prohibited prison employees from having an interest in prison contracts.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-53 prohibited prison officers or employees from owning, renting, leasing or working land within fifteen (15) miles of the state farm, and provided for a fine and dismissal.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 454, Laws of 2006, effective from and after passage (approved March 13, 2006), amended this section. Section 1 of ch. 361, Laws of 2006, effective from and after passage (approved March 23, 2006), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 1 of ch. 361, Laws of 2006, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The first 2006 amendment (ch. 361), substituted “Corrections Investigation” for “internal audit” and substituted “Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training” for “law enforcement academy” near the beginning of the first sentence of the third paragraph.

The second 2006 amendment (ch. 454), substituted “investigators with the Corrections Investigation Division who have been certified by the Board on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Training” for “investigators with the internal audit division who have been certified by the law enforcement academy” in the first sentence of the third paragraph.

Cross References —

Mississippi Law Enforcement Officers’ Training Academy, see §§45-5-1 et seq.

Definition of “law enforcement officer,” see §45-6-3.

Provision that the Commissioner of Corrections may set speed limits on roads of correctional facilities, which speed limits become effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected, see §63-3-511.

Sexual penetration of incarcerated offenders by law enforcement officers or employees, see §97-3-104.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Correctional officers may be eighteen years of age unless they are designated with the status of “peace officer”. Stringer, March 20, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0125.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity, construction, and application of state statute criminalizing possession of contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution. 45 A.L.R.5th 767.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 14, 17, 19-21, 23-25.

Cross References —

Exemptions from jury duty generally, §13-5-23.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2001, ch. 517, § 1, provides as follows:

“Section 1. (1) The Department of Corrections shall transfer and convey to the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks for the consideration of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) certain real property located in Quitman County, Mississippi, also known as the “O’Keefe Division Lands”, described more specifically as follows:

“All Mississippi Department of Corrections lands that lie in Township 26, Range 1 West, Section 2 less the NW 1/4 and the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Section 3, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 22, Section 23, Section 24, Section 25, Section 26, Section 27 of Quitman County, Mississippi.

“(2) The Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks is authorized to acquire the property described in subsection (1) and to pay the consideration therefor out of any funds available. Upon completion of the conveyance, the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks shall assume all supervision, management, maintenance and control of the property described in subsection (1) of this section and shall receive all revenue derived from such property.

“(3) Any funds received from the sale of the property described in subsection (1) of this section shall be deposited into a special fund in the State Treasury to be used by the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the general support of the department. Unexpended amounts remaining in the special fund at the end of a fiscal year shall not lapse into the State General Fund. Any interest earned or investment earnings on amounts in the fund shall be deposited into the special fund.”

Cross References —

Agricultural extension services of Mississippi State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, see §37-113-19.

Agricultural leases of prison lands to private entities, generally, see §47-5-64.

Publication requirements and submission of bids relating to agricultural leases of prison lands to private entities, see §47-5-66.

Establishment, regulation, and purchase of lands for game and fish management areas, see §§49-5-11 through49-5-15.

Powers and duties of State Game and Fish Commission, see §49-1-29.

Management by State Forestry Commission of growing and cutting of timber, see §49-19-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

73B C.J.S., Public Lands § 287-295.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-57 required a public hearing to be held before timber was cleared by the Department of Corrections on the O’Keefe Division Lands.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-59 pertained to price support loans from federal agencies.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-60 required the commissioner to transfer the title to all farm equipment, livestock, farm buildings and dwellings to the lessee of any lands leased from the Department of Corrections.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-61 authorized the penitentiary board to insure the cotton and cottonseed raised on the state farms.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-62 pertained to the status of leased farmlands.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-63 dealt with the sale or other disposition of cotton, cottonseed, or other goods advertised for sale where no bids are received or bids are rejected.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment substituted “commissioner” for “Mississippi Commissioner of Corrections” and “Department of Finance and Administration” for “Governor’s Office of General Services” throughout; and in the last sentence, substituted “three (3)” for “one (1)” and “eight (8)” for “three (3)” respectively.

The 2012 amendment designated the first three sentences of the former section as (1), and therein, added “and for nonagricultural” in the first sentence, inserted “or nonagricultural” in the second sentence, and made minor stylistic changes; designated the last sentence of the former section as (2), and therein, substituted “is authorized” for “shall have the authority”; and added (3).

Cross References —

Creation of the office of general services, see §7-1-451.

Department of Finance and Administration generally, see §§27-104-101 et seq.

Leasing of sixteenth section lands, see §§29-3-51 et seq.

Publication requirements and submission of bids relating to agricultural leases of prison lands to private entities, see §47-5-66.

Duties of the Public Procurement Review Board with respect to the leasing of prison agricultural lands, see §47-5-66.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Lands § 67.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-65 authorized the penitentiary board to engage the services of an agent for the sale of cotton.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 363 Laws, 2001, effective from and after passage (approved March 11, 2001), amended this section. Section 1 of ch. 407, Laws, 2001, effective from and after July 1, 2001 also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 1 of ch. 407, Laws, 2001, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, the amendment with the latest effective date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section taking effect earlier.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-1-451 provides that wherever the term “Office of General Services” appears in any law the same shall mean the Department of Finance and Administration.

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Laws of 1987, ch. 463, § 2, provided for the repeal of this section effective July 1, 1991. Subsequently, Laws of 1989, ch. 308, § 2, amended Laws of 1987, ch. 463, § 2, so as to remove the provision for the repeal of this section.

Laws of 1994, ch. 369, § 2, provides as follows:

“SECTION 2. The Department of Corrections and the State Forestry Commission shall study and prepare a reforestation plan for prison lands. The Department of Corrections and the State Forestry Commission shall submit the plan and any other recommendations to the Senate Forestry Committee, the Senate Corrections Committee and the House Penitentiary Committee no later than September 2, 1994.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment extended the date of the repealer in (2) from “July 1, 2002” until “July 1, 2004.”

The 2004 amendment extended the date of the repealer in (2) from “July 1, 2004” until “July 1, 2005”.

The 2006 amendment reenacted and amended the section by making a minor stylistic change in (1); and extended the date of the repealer in (2) from “July 1, 2005” until “July 1, 2007.”

The 2007 amendment, in the first paragraph of (1), deleted “State” preceding “Department of Finance” throughout, deleted “Mississippi” preceding “Uniform Commercial Code,” added “Lands leased for . . . ($9.00) per acre,” substituted “Department of Finance and Administration . . . all other county or municipal purposes” for “authorized by Section 47-5-64, the leased land shall be liable to be taxed as other lands are taxed during the continuance of the lease, but in case of sale thereon for taxes, only the title of the leaseholder or his heirs or assigns shall pass by the sale,‘ and made a minor stylistic change; added the second paragraph of (1); and substituted “July 1, 2008” for “July 1, 2007” in (2).

The 2008 amendment extended the date of the repealer for the section by substituting “July 1, 2009” for “July 1, 2008.”

The 2009 amendment added (2).

The 2012 amendment subdivided the first paragraph of (1) into (1) through (5); added the exception at the beginning of (1); rewrote present (2), which read: “There is created a special fund to be designated as the ‘Prison Agricultural Enterprises Fund.’ Any monies in hand or due from the leasing of Penitentiary lands and the sales of timber as provided in Section 47-5-56 and earmarked for the Prison Industries Fund shall be deposited to the special fund for prison agricultural enterprises. All monies in each fiscal year derived from the leasing of the Penitentiary lands and the sales of timber as provided in Section 47-5-56 shall be deposited into the special fund for the purpose of conducting, operating and managing the prison agricultural enterprises of the department”; updated the section references in present (5); designated the former second paragraph of the section as (6), and therein, substituted “provided under Section 47-5-64(2)” for “provided in this section”; and deleted the former last paragraph of the section, which read: “This section shall be repealed from and after July 1, 2014.”

Cross References —

Creation of the office of general services, see §7-1-451.

Creation of tax lien by this section and time that such lien attaches, see §27-35-1.

Sale by state forestry commission of timber from leased timberlands, see §47-5-56.

Agricultural leases of prison lands to private entities, generally, see §47-5-64.

Expenditures from and deposits to prison industries fund, see §47-5-323.

Payment of per diem and expenses of members of the prison industries advisory council from the prison industries fund, see §47-5-329.

Article 9 of the Mississippi Uniform Commercial Code, see §§75-9-101 et seq.

Federal Aspects—

Section 1324 of the Food Security Act of 1985, see 7 USCS § 1631.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Lands § 67.

15A Am. Jur. Legal Forms 2d, Public Lands § 212:16 (notice – to potential bidders – for lease of public lands).

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-67 authorized the penitentiary board to engage the services of an agent for the sale of rice.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-69 authorized a lessee to join in program of National Cotton Council.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 65-1-1 provides that whenever the term “Mississippi State Highway Department,” or the term “department” meaning the Mississippi State Highway Department, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Department of Transportation.

Section 65-1-1 provides that whenever the term “Mississippi State Highway Department,” or the term “department” meaning the Mississippi State Highway Department, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Department of Transportation, and whenever the term “State Highway Commission,” or the term “commission” meaning the State Highway Commission, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Transportation Commission.

Cross References —

Use of inmates of a correctional institution to work on projects of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, see §§47-5-133 and65-1-8.

Composition of Mississippi Commission, see §65-1-3.

Cross References —

Funding to assist in establishment of regional recycling centers, see §17-17-65.

Funding to assist in establishment of regional recycling centers, see §49-31-11.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-73 authorized the superintendent and penitentiary board to request any other state agencies to perform services in connection with prison programs.

Cross References —

Immunity of state and political subdivisions from liability and suit for torts and torts of its employees, see §§11-46-1 et seq.

Participation in a comprehensive plan of one or more policies of liability insurance, see §11-46-17.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The members of the Board of Corrections act in a general policy-making and supervisory capacity with respect to the various correctional institutions of the state. In cases involving the day-to-day operations of a corrections facility, normally the board members will have no potential liability. McFadden v. State, 542 So. 2d 871, 1989 Miss. LEXIS 65 (Miss. 1989).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 127.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment rewrote (2) to require an inmate who proceeds in forma pauperis to pay certain litigation expenses to the Department of Corrections in increments of 20% from his or her inmate account, and to remove the requirement that in order for an inmate to pay certain litigation expenses related to the in forma pauperis proceedings, the inmate must have had funds in his or her accounts during the preceding six months.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Because an inmate’s complaint—regarding the alleged confiscation of the inmate’s personal property during the inmate’s confinement in lock-down—was frivolous and because the inmate should not have been allowed to file the complaint as an in forma pauperis litigant due to the inmate’s prior frivolous filings, it was appropriate to assess costs of the inmate’s appeal to the inmate to be withdrawn from the inmate’s prison account. Duncan v. Bonner, — So.3d —, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 315 (Miss. Ct. App. May 26, 2020).

Inmate may be granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal under the statute; the language referencing appeals in the 1998 and 2005 amendments allows a trial court to grant an inmate IFP status on appeal. Willis v. Westley, 287 So.3d 1050, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Statute’s language provided the trial court with authority to allow an inmate to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal because the inmate filed his action against Mississippi Department of Corrections employees under §47-5-76(1), challenging a condition of confinement. Willis v. Westley, 287 So.3d 1050, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

It was appropriate to assess costs of an appeal to an inmate, despite his in forma pauperis status, as the Mississippi Department of Corrections was entitled to withdraw funds from the inmate’s account until all fees and costs of his appeal were repaid. Willis v. Westley, 287 So.3d 1050, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-76(1), under limited circumstances the Mississippi department of corrections must pay court costs for an inmate who brings a civil action against a department employee; however, that civil action must pertain to the inmate’s condition of confinement, and the inmate’s lawsuit did not pertain to a condition of his confinement, and as such the inmate was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis. Bessent v. Clark, 974 So. 2d 928, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Statute requiring Department of Corrections to pay for inmate suits pertaining to conditions of confinement applies at trial level and not at appellate level. Carson v. Hargett, 689 So. 2d 753, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 716 (Miss. 1996).

Section 47-5-76, which requires the Department of Corrections to pay court costs for an inmate plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action against a Department employee pertaining to conditions of confinement, applies only at the trial level and not at the appellate level. Moreno v. State, 637 So. 2d 200, 1994 Miss. LEXIS 265 (Miss. 1994).

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Duty of prison auditor with respect to bids, purchases, and sales, see §47-5-35.

Cross References —

Restrictions on governmental purchases of foreign beef, see §§31-7-61 to31-7-65.

Duty of auditor for the correctional system with respect to bids, purchases, and sales, see §47-5-35.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-81 required daily delivery of provisions and supplies to the camps on Parchman farm, and records to be kept thereof.

Former §47-5-83 dealt with the operation and management of the prison hospital at Sunflower farm.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

State prison regulations effectively preventing Muslim inmates from attending weekly congregational service do not violate First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S. Ct. 2400, 96 L. Ed. 2d 282, 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2604 (U.S. 1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 33, 34, 37-43, 45, 46.

Lawyers’ Edition.

Supreme Court’s views as to prisoner’s right to free exercise of religion under Federal Constitution’s First Amendment.96 L. Ed. 2d 736.

Cross References —

Duty of auditor for the correctional system with respect to bids, purchases, and sales, see §47-5-35.

Cross References —

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

Cross References —

Duties of Governor generally, see §7-1-5.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The governor’s duties under §§47-5-93 and7-1-5(c) and (d) are discretionary and, as such, the governor enjoys a qualified immunity to a civil suit for damages based on the governor’s alleged failure to perform his duties under those statutes. McFadden v. State, 542 So. 2d 871, 1989 Miss. LEXIS 65 (Miss. 1989).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Only insofar as Section 47-5-94 is applicable, Bureau of Building, Grounds and Real Property Management of Governor’s Office of General Services and State Board of Health are required to inspect State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi and not other correctional facilities. Cobb, July 15, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0494.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 85, 87, 91.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 100-102.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-97 dealt with periodic investigations of prison security measures and reports thereon, and authorized the penitentiary board to require persons entering the penitentiary to be searched.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Construction.

Miss Code Ann. §§47-5-99 to47-5-103 (1972) do not create an expectation of any particular classification. McLemore v. Greer, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25365 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 18, 2005).

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment substituted “designee or designees of the commissioner” for “director or assistant director of offender services” in the next-to-last sentence of (1).

Cross References —

Disclosure of youth court records, see §43-21-261.

Authority of classification committee regarding commutation of time for good conduct, see §47-5-139.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Inmate’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon was enough to have him removed from the Community Work Center and placed at a state prison; inmates had no property or liberty interest as to their housing assignment. Hamilton v. Ruffin, 875 So. 2d 1125, 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 587 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

Under Mississippi law, classification of inmates is the responsibility of Department of Corrections, and inmate has no right to particular classification; thus, prison inmate whose custody status was reduced to “close custody” classification has no liberty interest in classification under Due Process Clause, and where prison officials did not abuse discretion in changing custody status, prisoner is not entitled to preliminary injunctions against physical restraints to which he was subjected as result of change in status. Tubwell v. Griffith, 742 F.2d 250, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18287 (5th Cir. Miss. 1984).

Cross References —

Classification of offenders for earned time purposes, see §47-5-139.

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment substituted “Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00)” for “One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00)” in the first sentence, and in the last sentence substituted “Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives” for “Committee of the Senate and Penitentiary Committee of the House of Representatives.”

The 2016 amendment inserted “within the purview of the Department of Finance and Administration under Section 27-104-7” in the first sentence; and made a minor stylistic change in the last sentence.

Cross References —

Creation of the Office of General Services, see §7-1-451.

Duty of auditor for the correctional system with respect to bids, purchases, and sales, see §47-5-35.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

Cross References —

Duty of auditor for the correctional system with respect to bids, purchases, and sales, see §47-5-35.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Differences in character or quality of materials, articles, or work as affecting acceptance of bid for public contract. 27 A.L.R.2d 917.

Right of public authorities to reject all bids for public work or contract. 31 A.L.R.2d 469.

Am. Jur.

64 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Works and Contracts § 70.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 5.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

There is no statutory authority that would require a jail canteen to operate on a cash basis system; therefore, a sheriff may operate a jail canteen on a cashless system under the statute. Weissinger, June 26, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0333.

This section is not authority for a county board of supervisors to directly commit the profits from an inmate canteen fund to a contract for the provision of various programs and treatment services at a jail facility, such as inmate records system, substance abuse treatment program, GED program, chaplaincy and religious services, law library services, recreation program, etc. Webb, June 4, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0245.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 4-14, 22.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 2-4.

Amendment Notes —

The 2003 amendment rewrote the fifth and sixth sentences of (1); and added (5) containing a repealer of July 1, 2005.

The 2005 amendment extended the date of the repealer in (5) from “July 1, 2005” until “July 1, 2007.”

The 2007 amendment extended the date of the repealer in (5) from “July 1, 2007” to “July 1, 2011.”

The 2012 amendment deleted former (5), which read: “This section shall stand repealed on July 1, 2011.”

The 2015 amendment in (4)(a), substituted “evidence-based programs for the benefit of inmates, with emphasis on those that are targeted at reducing inmate recidivism” for “the regimented inmate discipline program” near the beginning, and added “and other facilities where the department confines state inmates” at the end; in (b), deleted “regimented inmate discipline and” preceding “prerelease programs at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution” in the first sentence, and deleted the former second sentence, which read: “Offenders assigned to this facility may receive the services provided by the regimented inmate discipline program”; and added (c).

Cross References —

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Mississippi Implied Consent Law, see §§63-11-1 et seq.

Restitution centers generally, see §99-37-19.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Without waiving the procedural bar to the inmate’s claim that his sentence was unconstitutional, the court held that the inmate was properly charged under Miss. Code Ann. §97-9-45 and entered a plea of guilty to the escape; the sentence of three years was well within the maximum prescribed by the statute, which referred to prisoners sentenced to the Mississippi Department of Corrections and allowed a maximum sentence of five years, and thus the inmate was not entitled to post-conviction relief; although the inmate was in custody and on a work program for a county at the time of the escape, the inmate was considered under the Department’s jurisdiction for purposes of §97-9-45 because (1) the inmate’s original burglary sentence required imprisonment in the “penitentiary” under Miss. Code Ann. §97-17-23, which term meant any facility under the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-3, (2) commitment to any institution within the jurisdiction of the Department was to the Department, not a particular institution pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-110, and (3) under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-541, the Department recommended rules concerning the participation of inmates in work programs. Gardner v. State, 848 So. 2d 900, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 570 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Section99-19-39, which governs the detention of a convict pending appeal, confers no right in a convicted felon to be incarcerated in county jail pending an appeal to the Supreme Court; construing §99-19-39 to create such a right would place that statutory section in conflict with the provisions of §47-5-1 et seq. which create a comprehensive correctional system to deal with the incarceration of all felony offenders; under the comprehensive legislative scheme setting up the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the circuit court sentences to the Department and not to any particular facility, and neither the circuit court nor the Supreme Court can order the Department to return a prisoner duly committed to its custody to county jail as a mater of right. Nicolaou v. State, 596 So. 2d 863, 1992 Miss. LEXIS 133 (Miss. 1992).

A prisoner did not have a protected liberty interest in being transferred from a county correctional facility to a state prison, absent a state law or regulation or prison policy or procedure conditioning such a transfer on proof of misbehavior or some other event. McFadden v. State, 580 So. 2d 1210, 1991 Miss. LEXIS 306 (Miss. 1991).

An imprisoned offender was improperly transferred from one institution to another institution within the same Department of Corrections, since such transfer was pursuant to an order of a Circuit Judge, and, pursuant to §47-5-110, only the Commissioner of Corrections has the authority to assign or transfer offenders to particular institutions. Lewis v. State, 414 So. 2d 435, 1982 Miss. LEXIS 2028 (Miss. 1982).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 18 et seq, 163 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 2, 17-20, 128, 129 et seq.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment substituted “Forty Cents ($.40)” for “Thirty-five Cents ($.35)” in the first sentence.

Cross References —

“Biddle guard” to be installed on vehicle transporting prisoner, §47-5-116.

Procedure for commitment of convict sentenced to penitentiary, see §§99-19-43 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 18, 163 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 20, 22, 130 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-112 pertained to serving a sentence in a county jail.

Cross References —

Duty to receive prisoners from United States officers, see §19-25-81.

Cross References —

Constitutional authority for governor to grant reprieves, see Miss. Const. Art. 5, § 124.

Procedure upon violation of pardon, see §99-19-29.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Any prisoner committed to the Department of Corrections must be transported in a vehicle equipped with a Biddle guard; this section does not apply to prisoners who have not been committed to the Department of Corrections. Hunter, August 13, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0395.

This section applies to the transportation of a prisoner for any reason with the exception of transporting prisoners on the grounds of a correctional facility under the jurisdiction of the department, to any vehicle used by a field officer of the Department of Corrections when taking a prisoner into the custody of the Department of Corrections or to any vehicle used to transport prisoners in work release programs. Hunter, August 13, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0395.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-117 dealt with the numbering of prisoners.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Fourth Amendment as protecting prisoner against unreasonable searches or seizures. 32 A.L.R. Fed. 601.

Cross References —

East Mississippi State Hospital, see §41-17-3.

Commitment of persons in need of mental treatment generally, see §§41-21-61 et seq.

Participation in a drug identification program by a person on probation or parole, see §§47-5-601 et seq.

Cross References —

Constitutional authority for separation of sexes, see Miss. Const. Art. 10, § 225.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 31.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 53.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-123 dealt with the clothing to be furnished as required outerwear for prisoners.

Amendment Notes —

The 2015 amendment deleted “or Regimented Inmate Discipline Program” preceding “authorized and administered by the Department of Corrections” in the next-to last sentence of (2); and deleted “or a Regimented Inmate Discipline program authorized and administered by the Department of Corrections” from the end of (3).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 113, 117, 118.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 68.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-125 dealt with the diet to be furnished prisoners.

Cross References —

Prohibition against use of offenders as servants, see §47-5-137.

Regulations relating to penitentiary-made goods, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

A prison inmate does not have a protected liberty interest in a particular job assignment under the due process clause. However, a liberty interest may be created by state law or prison regulation. McFadden v. State, 580 So. 2d 1210, 1991 Miss. LEXIS 306 (Miss. 1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-127 related to the working of prisoners, the deduction of overtime and Sunday work from their sentences, and the forfeiture of such deductions for misconduct.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-128 pertained to assignment of offenders to farming operations and the employment of other labor.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 65-1-1 provides that whenever the term “Mississippi State Highway Department,” or the term “department” meaning the Mississippi State Highway Department, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Department of Transportation.

Section 65-1-1 provides that whenever the term “Mississippi State Highway Department,” or the term “department” meaning the Mississippi State Highway Department, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Department of Transportation, and whenever the term “State Highway Commission,” or the term “commission” meaning the State Highway Commission, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Transportation Commission.

Cross References —

Bureau of Narcotics, see §41-29-107 et seq.

Bureau of Narcotics work program, see §41-29-110.

Use of inmates of correctional institutions on highway projects, see §65-1-8.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Although §47-5-133 appears to prohibit working prison inmate on private property, making inmate do such work and not paying inmate for such work does not violate inmate’s constitutional or civil rights. Murray v. Mississippi Dep't of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 16467 (5th Cir. Miss. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1050, 111 S. Ct. 760, 112 L. Ed. 2d 779, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 406 (U.S. 1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Application of Section 1 of 13th Amendment to United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Amend. XIII, 1, Prohibiting Slavery and Involuntary Servitude – Labor Required as Punishment for Crime. 87 A.L.R.6th 109.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Amendment Notes —

The 2009 amendment in the first sentence, inserted “or the Fuller Center for Housing, Inc., which are” following “Habitat for Humanity, Inc.,” and substituted “organizations” for “organization” at the end.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-135 directed the superintendent reduce the number of offenders at the insane hospital.

Former §47-5-136 pertained to rehabilitation programs for drug offenders.

Cross References —

Prisoners permitted to work on public roads or other public works, see §47-1-9.

County prisoners may provide certain public service work, see §47-1-19.

Working of municipal prisoners, see §47-1-41.

Working of inmates, see §47-5-126.

Use of prisoners in county jails to pick up trash, see §§47-5-43 et seq.

Use of prisoners in county jails to maintain certain historic cemeteries and serve food in conjunction with nonprofit organizations, see §47-5-441.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

A judge’s use of county prisoners to carry out personal labors on his own behalf justified removal of the judge from office. In re Collins, 524 So. 2d 553, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2932 (Miss. 1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Liability of public officer or body for harm done by prisoner permitted to escape. 44 A.L.R.3d 899.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment added “however, beginning July 1, 2006, no person under the age of twenty-one (21) who has committed a nonviolent offense, and who is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, shall be subject to the fifteen percent (15%) limitation for earned time allowances as described in this subsection (5)” at the end of (5).

The 2012 amendment substituted “served on earned-release supervision before revocation, shall be applied to reduce his sentence” for “was on earned-release supervision, shall not be applied to and shall not reduce his sentence” at the end of (7).

The 2014 amendment brought the section forward and amended it with a minor stylistic change in (2).

Cross References —

Handbook explaining earned time procedure, see §47-5-140.

Meritorious earned time, see §47-5-142.

Provision for notice to the sheriff of the county in which an offender was convicted prior to release of the offender from the custody of the Department of Corrections, see §47-5-177.

Eligibility for earned time credit for inmates participating in joint state-county public service work programs, see §47-5-413.

Earned time credit for inmates participating in joint state-county work program, see §47-5-461.

Participation in a drug identification program by a person on probation or parole, see §§47-5-601 et seq.

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Utilization of powers which tend to reduce prison system population, including earned time allowances, prior to declaration of a prison system overcrowding state of emergency, see §47-5-705.

Procedures for revocation of conditional advancement of parole eligibility date during period of prison overcrowding, see §47-5-723.

Relationship between earned time allowances and advancement of parole eligibility dates during periods of prison overcrowding, see §47-5-727.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Constitutionality.

3. Final order.

4. Early release.

5. Revocation.

1. In general.

As the allegations in an inmate’s motion for postconviction relief were contradicted by his prior sworn statements, and his claims had no arguable basis in law or in fact and had no realistic chance for success, the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in finding the motion frivolous and ordering the forfeiture of 60 days of his earned time under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138. Bell v. State, 102 So.3d 297, 2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 489 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), cert. denied, 119 So.3d 328, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 446 (Miss. 2013).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deeming appellant’s second post-conviction (PCR) motion frivolous and ordering the forfeiture of sixty days of his earned-time credit under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(3)(b)(i) because appellant entered a voluntary guilty plea, which waived his right to challenge the search warrant; the PCR motion offered nothing more than conclusory allegations framed as newly discovered evidence, and it had no realistic chance of success, was not premised upon an arguably sound basis in fact and law, and set forth no facts that would warrant relief. Russell v. State, 73 So.3d 542, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138 limits the maximum amount of earned time and meritorious earned time an offender could receive to one-half of his total sentence, but there is nothing in the statute that automatically entitles an offender to serve only fifty percent of his sentence. Hearron v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 22 So.3d 1238, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 827 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Where defendant pled guilty to statutory rape, the trial court did not err by sentencing defendant to participate in the Mississippi Regimented Inmate Discipline Program program under its own discretion, and not under the earned-time allowance program administered by the Mississippi DOC. Gatlin v. State, 18 So.3d 290, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 199 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Despite the fact that an inmate was entitled to an earned-time allowance of one-half of his total sentence, including mandatory time because he was convicted before the effective date of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e), the earned-time allowance did not reduce the mandatory portions of his sentences or accelerate his parole eligibility date under Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1) or his tentative discharge date. Adams v. Gibbs, 988 So. 2d 395, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 409 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Trial judge unquestionably could consider both the civil file in defendant’s post-conviction-relief proceedings and the entire record in the criminal proceedings, including the transcript of the guilty-plea hearing, in determining not only the issue of the merits of defendant’s post-conviction-relief petition, but also the issue of whether the petition was frivolous for the purpose of considering sanctions; the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in sanctioning defendant via a forfeiture of sixty days of accrued earned time. Moore v. State, 986 So. 2d 928, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 326 (Miss. 2008).

Trial court did not err in ordering the Department of Corrections to forfeit 60 days of defendant’s accrued earned time pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(3)(a) for filing a frivolous motion because defendant presented no argument that would enable him to prevail upon appeal. Waddell v. State, 999 So. 2d 375, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 93 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Inmate’s appeal was frivolous where the complaint never had a realistic chance of success, it failed to present an arguably sound basis in fact or law, and the inmate could not prove any set of facts that would warrant relief; the Mississippi department of corrections had to apply the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(3)(b)(i) regarding forfeiture of 60 days of the inmate’s earned time release, if the inmate had any. Bessent v. Clark, 974 So. 2d 928, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 633 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

In a case involving a motion for post-conviction relief, there was no error in finding that the motion was frivolous since there was no newly discovered evidence in a case arising from a guilty plea in 2004, as defendant had claimed; therefore, the loss of earned time was appropriate. Coleman v. State, 971 So. 2d 637, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007), cert. denied, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 681 (Miss. Dec. 6, 2007), cert. denied, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 684 (Miss. Dec. 6, 2007), cert. denied, 973 So. 2d 244, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 686 (Miss. 2007).

Notwithstanding a time bar, a post-conviction claim failed on the merits because earned time and trusty time were not allowed for an escape conviction under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(3) since certain conditions were not met, and defendant was erroneously allowed to keep the time that was credited to his non-mandatory sentences; because defendant was convicted of violating a state statutory provision instead of a prison rule, he was not entitled to receive an administrative hearing and have the forfeiture of earned time approved. Golden v. Epps, 958 So. 2d 271, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 392 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. dismissed, 968 So. 2d 948, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 610 (Miss. 2007).

Defendant was not prejudiced by the imposition of a forfeiture of good time based on a meritless motion for post-conviction relief because he was not eligible for such as a habitual offender. Adams v. State, 962 So. 2d 640, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 38 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Defendant’s discontentment concerning the loss of good time credits was without merit; under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138, the court may order forfeiture of good time credits upon a finding that the lawsuit was frivolous; the trial court ruled that the present suit was frivolous, and the appellate court would not disturb that finding as defendant’s motion was procedurally barred. Smith v. State, 922 So. 2d 43, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 126 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Order summarily dismissing petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief was upheld where, contrary to his allegations, there was no requirement in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138 that there be an evidentiary hearing before a classification board prior to the loss of earned time; in his brief, petitioner did not address any of the specific instances in which his earned time was forfeited or show that any evidentiary hearing would have been beneficial. Stewart v. State, 938 So. 2d 344, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 694 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

As an inmate was sentenced after June 30, 1995, and was subject to the earned release supervision (ERS) that was present in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(5), the inmate’s arguments that inmate’s fifteen percent earned time allowance should not be spent on ERS was without merit and his complaint was properly dismissed. Peters v. State, 935 So. 2d 1064, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 11 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 936 So. 2d 367, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 400 (Miss. 2006).

Trial court did not err in applying the earned time forfeiture statute after the inmate’s petition for post-conviction relief was denied as the present petition addressed issues that had previously been raised and resolved on appeal. Moore v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 936 So. 2d 941, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 973 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 560 (Miss. Aug. 24, 2006).

Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate’s motion for post-conviction relief and his claim that he should have been released after serving seven and one-half years of his 15-year sentence, as it was clear that the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) had authority to revoke the inmate’s earned time under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138 for violating the internal rules of the MDOC. Sanders v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 912 So. 2d 189, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 713 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Trial court properly denied defendant’s “motion to correct sentence” because applying Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138 to him was clearly impermissible under Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3, as he was an offender over 19 years of age and clearly ineligible for parole. Smith v. State, 914 So. 2d 330, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 793 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Because the record did not support any finding of ineffectiveness of counsel, the claim upon which defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief was based, but rather indicated that defendant understood all matters to which he pled and was satisfied with the performance of his attorney, it was within the trial court’s discretion to order that defendant forfeit 60 days of earned time. Stanley v. State, 904 So. 2d 1127, 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 973 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

There was no merit to petitioner’s contention that, since he was not eligible to accrue earned time at the time of his attempted escape, during the mandatory portion of his sentence, he had no earned time to be forfeited; the escape attempt resulted in a forfeiture of all of petitioner’s earned time credit. Boler v. Bailey, 840 So. 2d 734, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

In determining whether a case brought in forma pauperis should be dismissed as frivolous, the courts had a three-part test; did the complaint have a realistic chance of success, did it present an arguably sound basis in fact and law, and could the complainant prove any set of facts that would warrant relief. Dock v. State, 802 So. 2d 1051, 2001 Miss. LEXIS 272 (Miss. 2001).

An inmate could not accrue earned-time allowance in excess of 15 percent of his sentence, all prisoners were required to serve, at a minimum, 85 percent of their term of confinement. Hall v. State, 800 So. 2d 1202, 2001 Miss. App. LEXIS 347 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

Nothing in the earned time forfeiture provision prevents pro se inmates from seeking relief; the purpose of the statute is to reduce frivolous filings on the part of all incarcerated individuals, whether literate or illiterate, pro se or represented by counsel. Holt v. State, 757 So. 2d 1088, 2000 Miss. App. LEXIS 211 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

The trial court acted within appropriate boundaries when ordering that a certified copy of the final order dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief as frivolous be forwarded to the Mississippi Department of Corrections for action under subsection (3)(b), where the petitioner had previously petitioned the trial court for relief from sentence and other relief, and the same was deemed frivolous in a prior order, and he then filed his second petition with knowledge that his first petition had been deemed frivolous. Holt v. State, 757 So. 2d 1088, 2000 Miss. App. LEXIS 211 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

While forfeiture of time has become an additional option that a trial judge may exercise in imposing sanctions for frivolous motions, the trial judge may also impose monetary sanctions. Retherford v. State, 749 So. 2d 269, 1999 Miss. App. LEXIS 550 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

Statutory amendment that required that 85% of sentence be served and that eliminated opportunities for parole that had previously existed was an ex post facto law as applied to defendants who had been charged with crimes before effective date of statute and whose charges were not to be disposed of until after effective date. Puckett v. Abels, 684 So. 2d 671, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 636 (Miss. 1996).

A prisoner serving a 20-year sentence was not entitled to a deduction of earned time from his parole eligibility date since he did not become eligible for earned time until after the Attorney General issued an opinion discontinuing the practice of allowing earned time to shorten parole eligibility. McFadden v. State, 523 So. 2d 77, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 87 (Miss. 1988).

The actions of corrections officials in designating a prisoner eligible for earned time, due to an administrative or clerical error, and then in withdrawing that designation, did not amount to a forfeiture of earned time without due process since no earned time was accumulated by the prisoner. Doctor v. State, 522 So. 2d 229, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 81 (Miss. 1988).

Reasonable and harmonious construction of §§47-5-138,47-5-139, and47-7-3 is that legislature intended them to maintain enhanced penalty that §99-19-81 imposes on habitual offenders, which penalty includes denial of certain privileges available to other prisoners. Perkins v. Cabana, 794 F.2d 168, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27510 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 936, 107 S. Ct. 414, 93 L. Ed. 2d 366, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 4575 (U.S. 1986).

Defendant sentenced as habitual offender has no entitlement to credit for “good time.” Hardy v. State, 473 So. 2d 941, 1985 Miss. LEXIS 2166 (Miss. 1985).

2. Constitutionality.

This section is not unconstitutional, and does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since neither prison inmates nor indigents constitute a suspect class entitled to heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

The statute is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law, notwithstanding that it deprived the defendant of good time credits which he earned prior to the effective date of the statute, as the punitive measures required by the statute were applied to actions taken by the defendant after the effective date of the statute. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

The defendant was not deprived of due process in connection with his forfeiture of good time credits as it was apparent that this section provides much greater procedural protections than those which are typically found in extra-judicial prison revocation proceedings in that it only provides for a revocation of good time credits in the event that a “final order” is issued dismissing the prisoner’s lawsuit. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

This section is not rendered unconstitutional by the fact that it does not contain a provision granting inmates a right to counsel in appealing a revocation of good time credits under the statute as there is no right of counsel for appeals from inmate lawsuits which have been dismissed as frivolous. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

The statute is not rendered unconstitutional by the fact that it does not contain a provision for an inmate to file an in forma pauperis appeal from a ruling ordering the forfeiture of a prisoner’s earned good time credits since there is no constitutional right to appeal in forma pauperis from inmate lawsuits which have been dismissed as frivolous. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

3. Final order.

The orders dismissing an inmate’s lawsuits were final orders within the meaning of the statute where, in each of the orders, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit and expressly found that the suit was frivolous. Tubwell v. Anderson, 776 So. 2d 654, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 189 (Miss. 2000).

Based on the supreme court’s previous stern admonition to defendant and pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(3)(a), the appellate court’s mandate was a “final order” that dismissed a lawsuit brought by an inmate while the inmate was in the custody of the Department of Corrections as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the Mississippi Department of Corrections was directed and ordered that an additional 60, for a total of 120 days of accrued earned time would be forfeited by defendant. Roland v. State, 939 So. 2d 810, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

4. Early release.

Defendant’s sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum because the order only sent her to a restitution center if she was released on Earned Release Supervision or some other form of early release, and if she were released on Earned Release Supervision, any remaining time she served in a restitution center cannot exceed her statutory maximum sentence under state law. Stevens v. State, — So.3d —, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 128 (Miss. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2020).

Where appellant served 1,077 days in prison on his four-year sentence for the sale of cocaine, he was released on earned-release supervision under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138. The discharge certificate from the Mississippi Department of Corrections reflected that appellant had served his four-year sentence. Branch v. State, 996 So. 2d 829, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 782 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

5. Revocation.

Although an inmate was a candidate for sanctions under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(3)(a) and (b) for filing successive, frivolous motions for post-conviction relief, such sanctions would have no effect because he had been sentenced as a habitual offender under Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-81, and thus had no earned time to forfeit. Clay v. State, 168 So.3d 987, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 147 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013), cert. dismissed, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 651 (Miss. Dec. 12, 2013).

Denial of defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief, in which defendant challenged the revocation of his earned-release supervision (ERS), pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(2), was clearly erroneous because defendant was never indicted for the conduct upon which the revocation was based, and at the revocation hearing, the State did not present evidence to prove defendant had violated an ERS rule and did not dispute any evidence that defendant had acted in self-defense. Morris v. State, 66 So.3d 716, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Earned time may only be forfeited if an inmate commits a violation felonious in nature or in the event of escape. Lucas, June 22, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0443.

The Department of Corrections does not have the authority to award earned time to a defendant for time that was served in a municipal or county jail while awaiting trial. Anderson, July 10, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0350.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Withdrawal, forfeiture, modification, or denial of good-time allowance to prisoner. 95 A.L.R.2d 1265.

Defendant’s Right to Credit for Time Spent in Halfway House, Rehabilitation Center, or Similar Restrictive Environment as Condition of Pretrial Release. 46 A.L.R.6th 63.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-231.

22 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Prisoners' Rights Litigation.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 142-144, 146, 152.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 6 of ch. 393 Laws of 2001, effective from and after July 1, 2001 (approved March 12, 2001), amended this section. Section 1 of ch. 478, Laws of 2001, effective July 1, 2001 (approved March 23, 2001), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 1 of ch. 478, Laws of 2001, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment in (1), substituted “thirty (30)” for “ten (10)” and inserted “during any calendar month” following “thirty (30) days of participation”; and added (2).

The 2010 amendment rewrote (2)(e), which formerly read: “The offender was convicted of violating Section 41-29-139(a) and sentenced under Section 41-29-139(b) or 41-29-139(f).”

The 2014 amendment deleted former (2)(e) which read: “The offender was convicted of possession with the intent to deliver or sell a controlled substance under Section 41-29-139; or”; and redesigned the remaining subsection accordingly; and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general; construction.

2. Constitutionality.

1. In general; construction.

Circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion for post-conviction relief because his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made as result of the erroneous advice given to him by his appointed trial counsel—that a sentence for second-degree murder would be eligible for trusty-earned time—the judge did not discuss or mention defendant’s eligibility of trusty-earned time or that any term of incarceration would be served day for day during the plea colloquy, and the plea petition did not contradict in any shape or form defendant’s erroneous expectation about trusty-earned time, parole, or early release. Ulmer v. State, — So.3d —, 2020 Miss. App. LEXIS 85 (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2020).

Because appellant’s argument that his sentence should be reduced or his probation modified under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138.1 was raised for the first time on appeal, it was procedurally barred, and appellant failed to implicate a fundamental constitutional right to except his argument from the procedural bar, therefore the trial court properly dismissed appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. Monroe v. State, 203 So.3d 1140, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 675 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Inmate’s trusty-time credit was properly revoked because (1) anyone convicted of a sex offense was not eligible for such time, and (2) the inmate had been convicted of sexual battery, conspiracy to commit sexual battery, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor who was sexually abused. King v. McCarty, 196 So.3d 175, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 405 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Notwithstanding a time bar, a post-conviction claim failed on the merits because earned time and trusty time were not allowed for an escape conviction under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(3) since certain conditions were not met, and defendant was erroneously allowed to keep the time that was credited to his non-mandatory sentences; because defendant was convicted of violating a state statutory provision instead of a prison rule, he was not entitled to receive an administrative hearing and have the forfeiture of earned time approved. Golden v. Epps, 958 So. 2d 271, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 392 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. dismissed, 968 So. 2d 948, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 610 (Miss. 2007).

Defendant, who was convicted of armed robbery, was not allowed to accrue earned-time credits because the sentence for armed robbery was a mandatory day for day sentence, and defendant was not eligible for parole. Wells v. State, 936 So. 2d 479, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 596 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Because the inmate began serving his mandatory sentences as an habitual offender, totaling six years, on September 29, 2000, he would be serving them until September 29, 2006; and therefore, he remained ineligible for trusty status. Snow v. Johnson, 913 So. 2d 334, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 257 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Both defendant and the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office agreed that defendant’s parole and release dates were incorrectly calculated as to the date his sentence began and credits and trusty time. Thus, the appellate court reversed the determination that defendant was not entitled to a hearing and remanded the matter to the Mississippi Parole Board to allow the Board to make the exact calculations of defendant’s parole and release dates; however, on remand, the Board was free to grant or deny defendant’s petition for parole and the circuit court had no authority to determine defendant’s parole eligibility. Lizana v. Scott, 910 So. 2d 31, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 30 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

There was no merit to petitioner’s contention that, since he was not eligible to accrue earned time at the time of his attempted escape during the mandatory portion of his sentence, he had no earned time to be forfeited; the escape attempt resulted in a forfeiture of all of petitioner’s earned time credit. Boler v. Bailey, 840 So. 2d 734, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Proper interpretation of Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-138.1,47-5-139, was that the prisoner was ineligible for earned time allowance on the habitual and mandatory portion of the prisoner’s sentences. Hill v. State, 838 So. 2d 994, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

2. Constitutionality.

Trial court erred in summarily dismissing an inmate’s petition seeking trusty status; since the record lacked sufficient factual findings to determine whether the application of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138.1 to the inmate constituted an ex post facto violation, resolution of this issue required an evidentiary hearing. Horton v. Epps, 20 So.3d 24, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 210 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Trial court erred in summarily dismissing a prisoner’s motion for postconviction relief; an evidentiary hearing was necessary to decide whether application of the amended version of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138.1 to the prisoner, who had pleaded guilty to the crime of sale and transfer of cocaine, constituted an ex post facto violation. Gray v. State, 13 So.3d 283, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 611 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied, 2009 Miss. LEXIS 344 (Miss. July 23, 2009).

The amendment to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138.1 was not an ex post facto law; even though the amended statute held that an offender was not eligible for trusty status if the offender was convicted of trafficking in controlled substances, defendant continued to receive the 10 days for 30 days time benefit under the prior statute. Ross v. Epps, 922 So. 2d 847, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 141 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Cross References —

Penalty of life imprisonment without parole for sale of specified quantities of certain drugs, see §41-29-139.

Classification committee, see §§47-5-99 et seq.

Proceedings before classification committee on demotion of offenders or forfeiture of earned time, see §47-5-104.

Handbook explaining earned time procedure, see §47-5-140.

Meritorious earned time, see §47-5-142.

Eligibility for earned time credit for inmates participating in joint state-county public service work programs, see §47-5-413.

Earned time credit for inmates participating in joint state-county work program, see §47-5-461.

Utilization of powers which tend to reduce prison system population, including earned time allowances, prior to declaration of a prison system overcrowding state of emergency, see §47-5-705.

Procedures for revocation of conditional advancement of parole eligibility date during period of prison overcrowding, see §47-5-723.

Relationship between earned time allowances and advancement of parole eligibility dates during periods of prison overcrowding, see §47-5-727.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general; construction.

2. Constitutional issues.

3. Multiple sentences.

4. Eligibility for release.

5. Changes in regulation or in interpretation of regulation.

6. Conditional release.

7. Miscellaneous.

1. In general; construction.

Notwithstanding a time bar, a post-conviction claim failed on the merits because earned time and trusty time were not allowed for an escape conviction under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(3) since certain conditions were not met, and defendant was erroneously allowed to keep the time that was credited to his non-mandatory sentences; because defendant was convicted of violating a state statutory provision instead of a prison rule, he was not entitled to receive an administrative hearing and have the forfeiture of earned time approved. Golden v. Epps, 958 So. 2d 271, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 392 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. dismissed, 968 So. 2d 948, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 610 (Miss. 2007).

Defendant was not entitled to parole consideration on a rape conviction based on the fact that defendant was 19 when the offense was committed because the former Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3 allowed parole consideration only in cases where the defendant was convicted of statutory rape; former Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139 precluded good time credit for any sex offense. Braziel v. Bailey, 835 So. 2d 962, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

There was no merit to petitioner’s contention that, since he was not eligible to accrue earned time at the time of his attempted escape during the mandatory portion of his sentence, he had no earned time to be forfeited; the escape attempt resulted in a forfeiture of all of petitioner’s earned time credit. Boler v. Bailey, 840 So. 2d 734, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Proper interpretation of Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-138.1,47-5-139, was that the prisoner was ineligible for earned time allowance on the habitual and mandatory portion of the prisoner’s sentences. Hill v. State, 838 So. 2d 994, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

A prisoner may not earn good time during service of a mandatory portion of his period of confinement and later use that good time earned upon expiration of the mandatory portion of his sentence. Wilson v. Puckett, 721 So. 2d 1110, 1998 Miss. LEXIS 434 (Miss. 1998).

A defendant convicted of armed robbery was not eligible to reduce his sentence with the grant of administrative good time, pursuant to §47-5-139, since earned time for good conduct and performance only applies to inmates who are eligible for parole, and defendant was not entitled to parole under §47-7-3, which required him to serve his full 10-year sentence. Cooper v. State, 439 So. 2d 1277, 1983 Miss. LEXIS 2983 (Miss. 1983).

2. Constitutional issues.

Where a juvenile convicted of murder receives a life sentence, conditional release does not satisfy the mandate of Miller v. Alabama, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4873, because conditional release is more akin to clemency, which is different from parole despite some surface similarities, and conditional release would not be determined by the sentencing authority at the time of sentencing based on age and other characteristics, as Miller mandates. Parker v. State, 119 So.3d 987, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 321 (Miss. 2013).

Defendant, convicted of murder, argued that because of his age, under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(a) he was subjected to greater punishment for his crime than others sentenced to life imprisonment at age 50 or older; the appellate court rejected his argument that the age distinction in the statute subjected a younger individual to a longer punishment that was cruel and unusual, since his life sentence fell within the statutory limits designated by the Mississippi Legislature. Knox v. State, 912 So. 2d 1004, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 207 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 921 So. 2d 344, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 686 (Miss. 2005).

Inmate’s petition arguing that the Mississippi Department of Corrections illegally took his earned time allowance away from him was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. The inmate claims of due process/ex post facto violations were fatally flawed as had not legally acquired any earned time allowances because he was not eligible for earn time allowances on the mandatory portion of his sentences for armed robbery, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e). Adams v. Epps, 900 So. 2d 1210, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 145 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. dismissed, 901 So. 2d 1273, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 291 (Miss. 2005).

Defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment for murder conviction was upheld because Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(a) was not violative of defendant’s due process and equal protection rights by specifying criteria to consider in determining which inmates could or could not be considered for earned time allowance. Martin v. State, 871 So. 2d 693, 2004 Miss. LEXIS 416 (Miss. 2004).

Denial of credit for time served in jail and of “good time” to person convicted of felony who appeals judgment of conviction and who remains in jail pending disposition of appeal due to inability to make bond, while allowing credit for time served in jail and award of “good time” to convicted felons serving sentence in county jail without appealing conviction is denial of equal protection, contrary to Fourteenth Amendment. Lacy v. State, 468 So. 2d 63, 1985 Miss. LEXIS 2040 (Miss. 1985).

A defendant convicted of armed robbery after 1977 and sentenced to serve less than 10 years in the penitentiary, and who was therefore not eligible for parole pursuant to §47-7-3, was not subjected to enforcement of an ex post facto law by a policy of the Department of Corrections administratively barring him from earning good time after January, 1981, although good time earned prior to that date was not taken away, notwithstanding the provisions of §47-5-139, since the statutory provisions regarding good time remained unchanged, and since administrative interpretation of a clearly worded statute is not a “law” within the scope and contemplation of the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. Tiller v. State, 440 So. 2d 1001, 1983 Miss. LEXIS 2981 (Miss. 1983).

3. Multiple sentences.

A defendant who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for armed robbery and 15 years imprisonment for manslaughter to run consecutively, would be eligible for parole on March 30, 1993, where he began the service of his 10-year armed robbery sentence on the date of his initial arrest pursuant to §99-19-23, he was legally released from that sentence 10 years later on February 5, 1990 but remained held under the 15-year manslaughter sentence, and he earned substantial meritorious earned time; although he would ordinarily have been required to serve at least 1/4 of the manslaughter sentence-3 years and 9 months-before he became eligible for parole, his earned time advanced his earliest parole eligibility date by approximately 7 months. Milam v. State, 578 So. 2d 272, 1991 Miss. LEXIS 225 (Miss. 1991).

Reasonable and harmonious construction of §§47-5-138,47-5-139, and47-7-3 is that legislature intended them to maintain enhanced penalty that §99-19-81 imposes on habitual offenders, which penalty includes denial of certain privileges available to other prisoners. Perkins v. Cabana, 794 F.2d 168, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27510 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 936, 107 S. Ct. 414, 93 L. Ed. 2d 366, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 4575 (U.S. 1986).

Under the requirement of §47-7-3 that a person under a life sentence becomes eligible for parole after ten years, a prisoner serving three consecutive life terms would not be eligible for parole until he had served at least ten years of each life sentence less 30 percent of earned good time, since §47-5-139(3) mandates the mathematical process of multiplying the number of life sentences imposed upon the prisoner by ten years to determine the date upon which the prisoner would become eligible for parole. Davis v. State, 429 So. 2d 262, 1983 Miss. LEXIS 2555 (Miss. 1983).

4. Eligibility for release.

Inmate did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel as: (1) the plea petition, the guilty-plea colloquy, and the post-conviction relief evidentiary hearing, taken together, reflected that defense counsel correctly advised the inmate of the life sentence for murder, his potential for release at age 65, and the correct sentencing statutory provision, Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1)(f), which prohibited parole eligibility because the inmate pled guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment; (2) the inmate had the potential for release Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(a) at age 65 after serving 15 years by petitioning for early release at or after age 65; (3) the inmate was 36 years old at the time of his guilty plea and sentence; (4) upon reaching age 65, the inmate would have served substantially more than 15 years; and (5) the inmate admitted being advised of his eligibility to be released at age 65. Higginbotham v. State, 114 So.3d 9, 2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 595 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), cert. denied, 116 So.3d 1072, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 317 (Miss. 2013).

5. Changes in regulation or in interpretation of regulation.

Defendant who enters plea of guilty to charge of armed robbery pursuant to plea bargain agreement in reliance upon erroneous advice of attorney that defendant will be eligible for earned good time and will be subject to release after serving 7 years of sentence is entitled to vacation of guilty plea and reinstatement of innocent plea when Mississippi Department of Corrections changes administrative policy to comply with §§47-5-139,47-7-3, thereby requiring that defendant serve minimum of 10 years. Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 680, 1986 Miss. LEXIS 2336 (Miss. 1986).

A petitioner who enters a guilty plea to armed robbery pursuant to plea bargain agreement upon erroneous advice of counsel that petitioner will be eligible for earned good time and will be subject to release after serving 7 years of sentence is not subjected to ex post facto law when Mississippi Department of Corrections changes administrative policy to comply with §§47-5-139 and47-7-3, causing petitioner to serve minimum of 10 years. Coleman v. State, 483 So. 2d 680, 1986 Miss. LEXIS 2336 (Miss. 1986).

A defendant convicted of armed robbery after 1977 and sentenced to serve less than 10 years in the penitentiary, and who was therefore not eligible for parole pursuant to §47-7-3, was not subjected to enforcement of an ex post facto law by a policy of the Department of Corrections administratively barring him from earning good time after January, 1981, although good time earned prior to that date was not taken away, notwithstanding the provisions of §47-5-139, since the statutory provisions regarding good time remained unchanged, and since administrative interpretation of a clearly worded statute is not a “law” within the scope and contemplation of the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. Tiller v. State, 440 So. 2d 1001, 1983 Miss. LEXIS 2981 (Miss. 1983).

6. Conditional release.

Miss. Code Ann. §97-3-21 was not unconstitutionally vague and did not apply to the inmate where the inmate confused parole with conditional release as: (1) Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1)(f) prohibited parole for an inmate sentenced to life under Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-101 for capital offenses; (2) since the inmate pled guilty to murder, carrying a life sentence, he was convicted of an other capital offense under Miss. Code Ann. §1-3-4; and (3) the inmate was eligible to petition for conditional release at age 65 under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(a). Higginbotham v. State, 114 So.3d 9, 2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 595 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), cert. denied, 116 So.3d 1072, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 317 (Miss. 2013).

Defendant’s guilty plea to murder under Miss. Code Ann. §97-3-19(1)(a) was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent as defense counsel correctly advised the inmate that when he reached the 65, he could petition to be released from custody under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(a); while counsel might have used the term “parole eligibility” rather than the correct term “conditional release,” he correctly advised the inmate that he would be eligible for release at age 65. Higginbotham v. State, 114 So.3d 9, 2012 Miss. App. LEXIS 595 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012), cert. denied, 116 So.3d 1072, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 317 (Miss. 2013).

7. Miscellaneous.

Inmate’s claim of ineffective assistance lacked merit, as the inmate’s claims that he would not have entered his guilty plea for fondling if his attorney had not misrepresented his eligibility for parole was contradicted by the fact that, at the plea hearing, he indicated he had not been promised anything in order to make him enter his guilty plea and was aware of the maximum sentence that could have been imposed. Brown v. State, 187 So.3d 667, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 132 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Trial court did not err in dismissing an inmate’s petition alleging that the Mississippi Department of Corrections improperly computed his discharge date and that he had to be released from prison because the inmate was not entitled to any earned-time credit, and his time had been properly computed; because Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-81 clearly stated that a habitual offender’s sentence would not be reduced, the inmate was required to serve the maximum term of imprisonment for his crime of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer, which was thirty years’ imprisonment, Miss. Code Ann. §97-3-7(2), and was the sentence that the inmate received. Lee v. Kelly, 34 So.3d 1203, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 75 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

In a post-conviction relief case in which a pro se inmate had pled guilty to armed robbery, he argued unsuccessfully that constitutional rights were violated because he was sentenced to serve a mandatory 10-year sentence without the benefit of earned time. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e), an inmate was not eligible for earned-time credit when the inmate had not served the mandatory time required for parole eligibility for a conviction of robbery or attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, and, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1)(d)(ii) (now47-7-3(1)(c)(ii)), he was not eligible for parole since he had been convicted of armed robbery after October 1, 1994. Diggs v. State, 46 So.3d 361, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 55 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 49 So.3d 636, 2010 Miss. LEXIS 561 (Miss. 2010).

Despite the fact that an inmate was entitled to an earned-time allowance of one-half of his total sentence, including mandatory time because he was convicted before the effective date of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e), the earned-time allowance did not reduce the mandatory portions of his sentences or accelerate his parole eligibility date under Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1) or his tentative discharge date. Adams v. Gibbs, 988 So. 2d 395, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 409 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Although appellant argued that the trial court failed to inform him that he would be eligible for earned time pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1) only after serving 10 years of his sentence, because appellant was convicted after October 1, 1994, appellant was not eligible for parole pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(d)(ii) (now47-7-3(1)(c)(ii)). Since appellant was not eligible for parole, appellant was precluded from accumulating earned time pursuant to §47-5-139(1)(e). Robinson v. State, 4 So.3d 361, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 399 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008), cert. denied, 11 So.3d 1250, 2009 Miss. LEXIS 112 (Miss. 2009).

Post-conviction relief was properly denied in an armed robbery case because a trial court correctly stated that, due to the nature of the charges, defendant was not eligible for parole, and he had to serve his entire 30-year sentence; defendant was not eligible under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139 until the mandatory portion of his sentence had been served. Robinson v. State, 964 So. 2d 609, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 607 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Appellant was not entitled to earned time credit under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e) where appellant had not served the mandatory time required for parole eligibility for a conviction of armed robbery; appellant had to serve the entire sentence under Miss. Code Ann. §47-7-3(1)(d)(ii). Sykes v. Epps, 963 So. 2d 31, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 518 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139(1)(e), an inmate was not entitled to receive earned time until he had served the mandatory portion of sentence; the inmate was not entitled to receive eighteen-and-one-half years earned time, and any calculation that the Mississippi Department of Correction (MDOC) mistakenly gave did not change that fact; the incorrect sentence computation given to the inmate did not operate to increase his earned time, which had been properly calculated by MDOC as thirteen-and-one-half years. Guy v. Box, 925 So. 2d 139, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 202 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Defendant, who was convicted of armed robbery, was not allowed to accrue earned-time credits because the sentence for armed robbery was a mandatory day for day sentence, and defendant was not eligible for parole. Wells v. State, 936 So. 2d 479, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 596 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Although the inmate argued that Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-139 should be interpreted to allow his non-mandatory sentences to run concurrently with his mandatory sentences, thus entitling him to be released from prison; the appellate court was unable to grant such relief where the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) had to be allowed to interpret its statutes in a manner that allowed the Mississippi Parole Board to impose an enhanced penalty for habitual offenders, and MDOC’s interpretation of Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-21 as it applied to subsequent mandatory sentences was correct. Snow v. Johnson, 913 So. 2d 334, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 257 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

A prisoner was not permitted to earn good time credit during service of the mandatory portion of his period of confinement and then use that good time earned upon expiration of the mandatory portion of the sentence. Williams v. Puckett, 624 So. 2d 496, 1993 Miss. LEXIS 420 (Miss. 1993).

The district court’s findings as to the illegality of the disciplinary procedures at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, and the relief therein granted, were affirmed. Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 6790 (5th Cir. Miss. 1974).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Withdrawal, forfeiture, modification, or denial of good-time allowance to prisoner. 95 A.L.R.2d 1265.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-231.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 142-144, 146, 152.

Cross References —

Earned time for good conduct, see §§47-5-138,47-5-139.

Trusties authorized to accumulate additional earned time, see §47-5-138.1.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-141 provided for voluntary donations of blood.

Amendment Notes —

The 2009 amendment deleted the former last 3 sentences from the end of (4), which placed a cap on the number of days that could be awarded under the meritorious earned time program.

The 2014 amendment brought the section forward without change.

Cross References —

Earned time, generally, see §§47-5-138,47-5-139.

Earned time credit for inmates participating in joint state-county public service work programs, see §§47-5-413.

Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Effect of meritorious earned time upon parole eligibility, see §47-7-3.

Penalties for state and county prisoners who escape from custody, see §§97-9-43 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The meritorious earned time provision in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-142 clearly referred to a “reduction of sentence,” and was not subject to the earned release supervision in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-138(5). Peters v. State, 935 So. 2d 1064, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 11 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 936 So. 2d 367, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 400 (Miss. 2006).

Both defendant and the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office agreed that defendant’s parole and release dates were incorrectly calculated in regard to the date his sentence began, and as to credits and trusty time. Thus, the appellate court reversed the determination that defendant was not entitled to a hearing and remanded the matter to the Mississippi Parole Board to allow the Board to make the exact calculations of defendant’s parole and release dates; however, on remand, the Board was free to grant or deny defendant’s petition for parole and the circuit court had no authority to determine defendant’s parole eligibility. Lizana v. Scott, 910 So. 2d 31, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 30 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Inmate’s suit against prison officials seeking 180 days of meritorious earned time was properly dismissed where awarding the credit was within the discretion of the officials pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-142, the inmate failed to resolve the matter by contacting his work supervisor, and he received no injury resulting from the denial of his meritorious earned time award. Green v. Sparkman, 829 So. 2d 1290, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 588 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied, 840 So. 2d 716, 2003 Miss. LEXIS 173 (Miss. 2003).

The unexplained failure to award an inmate meritorious earned time did not amount to a violation of his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, since an inmate’s earning of “time” is a matter of grace or privilege under §47-5-142, which provides that “meritorious earned time may be awarded.” Since correctional officials are vested with discretionary power to award time under certain conditions, inmates are not entitled to it. Ross v. State, 584 So. 2d 777, 1991 Miss. LEXIS 483 (Miss. 1991).

A defendant who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for armed robbery and 15 years imprisonment for manslaughter to run consecutively, would be eligible for parole on March 30, 1993, where he began the service of his 10-year armed robbery sentence on the date of his initial arrest pursuant to §99-19-23, he was legally released from that sentence 10 years later on February 5, 1990 but remained held under the 15-year manslaughter sentence, and he earned substantial meritorious earned time; although he would ordinarily have been required to serve at least 1/4 of the manslaughter sentence-3 years and 9 months-before he became eligible for parole, his earned time advanced his earliest parole eligibility date by approximately 7 months. Milam v. State, 578 So. 2d 272, 1991 Miss. LEXIS 225 (Miss. 1991).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Withdrawal, forfeiture, modification, or denial of good-time allowance to prisoner. 95 A.L.R.2d 1265.

Denial of state prisoner’s application for, or revocation of, participation in work or study release program or furlough program as actionable under Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS § 1983). 55 A.L.R. Fed. 208.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-231.

22 Am. Jur. Trials 1, Prisoners' Rights Litigation.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 144-146, 148, 154.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-143 prohibited the use of trusty guards from and after July 1, 1974, and authorized the employment of civilian guards.

Former §47-5-145 regulated the discipline to be administered for prisoner infractions and made it a felony for any prison employee to violate the section, punishable by dismissal and imprisonment for 1-5 years.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

27A Am. Jur. 2d, Escape §§ 1 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 99-19-49 referred to in this section, was repealed by Laws of 2000, ch. 569, § 18, eff from and after July 1, 2000.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment, effective July 1, 2011, substituted “Oakley Youth Development Center” for “Columbia Training School, Oakley Training School” in the fourth paragraph.

Cross References —

Duty of district attorney, see §§25-31-1 et seq.

Disposition of bodies of executed prisoners, see §99-19-55.

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-153 authorized the penitentiary board to establish a program of vocational rehabilitation training.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-7-2 provides that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor,” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer.

Section 27-104-6 provides that whenever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Qualifications for depositories for state funds, see §§27-105-1 et seq.

Portion of the Inmate Welfare Fund to be deposited in Discharted Offenders Revolving Fund created in this section, see §47-5-158.

Transfer of payments from community service revolving fund to discharged offenders’ revolving fund, see §47-7-49.

Amendment Notes —

The 2014 amendment, in the first undesignated paragraph, added “and the discharge plan developed as required by law” to the end of the first sentence; substituted “At least fifteen (15) days” for “Within forty-eight (48) hours” at the beginning of the second sentence; and in the last sentence, at the beginning, substituted “The offender” for “He”, and inserted “a Mississippi driver’s license, or a state identification card that is not a department-issued identification card and.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Liability of governmental officer or entity for failure to warn or notify of release of potentially dangerous individual from custody. 12 A.L.R.4th 722.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 21, 170.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 152, 153.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 379, Laws of 1996, effective from and after passage (approved March 18, 1996), amended this section. Section 1 of ch. 474, Laws of 1996, effective from and after passage (approved April 8, 1996), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 1 of ch. 474, Laws of 1996, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Section 1 of ch. 459, Laws of 2002, eff from and after July 1, 2002 (approved March 20, 2002), amended this section. Section 3 of ch. 624, Laws of 2002, eff from and after July 1, 2002 (approved April 25, 2002), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 3 of ch. 624, Laws of 2002, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The first 2002 amendment (ch. 459) rewrote (3); and in (7), substituted “composed of seven (7) members” for “composed of five (5) members,” inserted “the Deputy Commissioner of Institutions,” and substituted “two (2) members” for “one (1) member” in the first sentence, and rewrote the second sentence.

The second 2002 amendment (ch. 624) rewrote (3); and in (7), substituted “The Deputy Commissioner for Community Corrections” for “The Deputy Commissioner for Community Services” in the first sentence.

The 2007 amendment, in (3), deleted “of Corrections” following “department” in the second sentence of the introductory paragraph, substituted “July 1, 2008” for “July 1, 2007” in (b) and (d), and substituted “The department may use” for The Mississippi Department of Corrections may use” in (b).

The 2008 amendment, in (3), substituted “thirty-five percent (35%)” for “fifty percent (50%)” in (b) and “Forty percent (40%)” for “Twenty-five percent (25%)” in (c), and deleted former (d), which read: “Until July 1, 2008, twenty-five percent (25%) shall be deposited in a fund called the Inmate Technology Fund to purchase an Inmate Information Technology System. This paragraph (d) shall repeal on July 1, 2008.”

The 2015 amendment, in (1), inserted “or in a bank account or accounts” in the first sentence, and added “and shall be expended…under subsection (7) of this section” at the end; in (2), deleted “the annual prison rodeo” following “inmate canteens” in the first sentence, and “Mississippi Code of 1972” at the end of the last sentence; in (5), combined the former first and second sentences into the present first sentence by deleting “be the custodian of the Inmate Welfare Fund. He shall” preceding “establish and implement,” and in the first sentence, inserted “for the Inmate Welfare Fund” and “and regulations of the Department of Finance and Administration,” and substituted “Chairman of the Corrections Committee” for “Chairman of the Penitentiary Committee”; in (7), in (a), substituted “nine (9) members” for “seven (7) members,” inserted “the State Treasurer, the State Auditor,” and added “one (1) of whom…inmate families” at the end of the first sentence, and substituted “shall promulgate” for “may promulgate” in the last sentence, and added (b) through (d); and in (8), inserted “special” and “committee’s use of the” in the first sentence, and added the last two sentences.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Inmate Welfare Fund money may be used to purchase inmate law library books. Lucas, Oct. 14, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0733.

The approval of the Inmate Welfare Fund Committee is required prior to any expenditure, and whether the construction of a roof over an exercise yard is a proper use of the Fund is a factual determination to be made by the Committee in conformity with the rules and regulations governing such expenditures. Lindsey, May 30, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0256.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-159 pertained to work release program and the duties of board of corrections with respect to such program.

Former §47-5-161 pertained to work release program ane the extension of limits of offender’s confinement and the payment of offender’s wages escape.

Former §47-5-163 pertained to work release program and the conditions on offender’s participation.

Former §47-5-165 pertained to work release program and the consent of certain officials.

Former §47-5-167 pertained to work release program and cooperation with private industry.

Former §47-5-169 pertained to work release program and the application to prisoners presently working off penitentiary property.

Former §45-5-171 pertained to the supervised earned release program.

For similar provisions, see §§47-5-413,47-5-461.

Amendment Notes —

The 2014 amendment substituted “At least fifteen (15) days” for “Within forty-eight (48) hours” at the beginning of the second sentence.

Cross References —

Leave to inmates participating in joint state-county public service work programs, see §47-5-415.

Passes and leaves under joint county-state work program, see §47-5-463.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Under Sections 47-5-173 and 47-5-177 only the Commissioner of Corrections may authorize leave of prisoners. A sheriff is only notified of the release of the prisoners under section 47-5-177. Trowbridge, Nov. 14, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0472.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Liability of governmental officer or entity for failure to warn or notify of release of potentially dangerous individual from custody. 12 A.L.R.4th 722.

Grant or denial of furlough or work release to federal prisoner under 18 USCS § 4082(c). 64 A.L.R. Fed. 807.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for the automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed Laws, 1984 of ch. 471, § 128, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Provisions relative to prison system overcrowding and the exercise of powers which tend to reduce prison system population or expand operating capacity during states of emergency, see §§47-5-701 et seq.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment, in the first paragraph, deleted “of Corrections” following “department” throughout, in the first sentence, deleted “which shall include a copy of the ‘Release Offense Investigation’ and the ‘Social Admission Report’ ” preceding “to the sheriff of the county,” inserted “or electronic” following “shall give written” twice, and deleted “State” preceding “department” in the last sentence; in the first sentence of the last paragraph, deleted “of Corrections” following “The commissioner,” and deleted “written” following “to clearly identify the.”

The 2014 amendment substituted “At least fifteen (15) days” for “Within forty-eight (48) hours” at the beginning of the first sentence in the first undesignated paragraph.

Cross References —

Procedures relative to written discharge or release, publication of notice pursuant to this section, and provision to offender of clothing, money, and bus ticket, see §47-5-157.

Procedures relative to granting of leaves for personal reasons, see §47-5-173.

Requirements for parole, including notice requirements, see §47-7-17.

Arson, generally, see §§97-17-1 through97-17-14.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Under Sections 47-5-173 and 47-5-177 only the Commissioner of Corrections may authorize leave of prisoners. A sheriff is only notified of the release of the prisoners under section 47-5-177. Trowbridge, Nov. 14, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0472.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Immunity of public officer from liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 5 A.L.R.4th 773.

Governmental tort liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 6 A.L.R.4th 1155.

Liability of governmental officer or entity for failure to warn or notify of release of potentially dangerous individual from custody. 12 A.L.R.4th 722.

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 72, 74, 79, 83, 84, 90, 93, 94, 99, 109, 111, 117, 122.

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon & Parole § 65.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Constitutionality.

Inmate’s complaint was procedurally barred as the inmate did not provide authority for the inmate’s claim that Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-179, under which the inmate was charged $ 6 for medical care, deprived the inmate of the inmate’s property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. V; further, the facility’s personnel abided by MDOC Policy 25-02-A, and complied with statutory authority, and did not deny the inmate non-emergency medical care due to a lack of funds. Clincy v. Atwood, 65 So.3d 327, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 345 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment, in (2), inserted “or her earliest” and added “or the commissioner’s designee.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutes and Rules Governing Requests for Postconviction DNA Testing. 72 A.L.R.6th 227.

Cross References —

Uniform Controlled Substances Law, see §§41-29-101 et seq.

Offense of selling or possessing intoxicating beverages in penitentiaries, jails, or convict camps, see §97-31-35.

Cross References —

Provisions of the Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act, see §§25-43-1.101 et seq.

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any misdemeanor violation, see §99-19-73.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment inserted “unauthorized electronic device” twice following “deadly weapon”.

The 2006 amendment inserted “or offender‘ following “any other person” in the first sentence and following ‘ any person‘ near the beginning of the second sentence; inserted “possess” following ‘or offender to” in the first sentence; and inserted “cell phone” following “unauthorized electronic device” twice.

The 2008 amendment inserted “or any of its components or accessories to include, but not limited to, Subscriber Information Module (SIM) cards, chargers, etc.,” twice, following “cell phone” near the end of the first and second sentences of the section.

The 2012 amendment inserted “of any municipal or other correctional facility in this state,” twice inserted “contraband item” preceding “cell phone,” and twice substituted “(SIM) cards or chargers” for “(SIM) cards, chargers, etc., or contraband items,” inserted “within the state” and “a county, a municipality, or other entity” near the end and made stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment, effective April 3, 2019, added (2).

Cross References —

Additional prohibited items, see §47-5-194.

Penalties for violations of this section and §47-5-194, see §47-5-195.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Evidence.

2. — Sufficient.

3. Limiting instruction.

3.5. Presumptive instructions.

4. Recusal.

5. In general.

6. Constitutionality.

7. Applicability.

8. Burden of proof.

1. Evidence.

2. — Sufficient.

Assuming that the State of Mississippi was required to prove that defendant was an inmate of a county jail, the evidence supported defendant’s conviction for unauthorized possession of a cell phone in a county jail because, although the booking process had not been completed, defendant was in a locked area, dressed in a jail uniform, and was not free to leave. When defendant put defendant’s belongings on a counter, the cell phone, among other items, fell out of a rolled up mat that the jail had provided to defendant. Smith v. State, 275 So.3d 100, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 238 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Overwhelming weight of the evidence supported jury’s conviction of defendant for possession of a cell phone within a correctional facility. The evidence established that during a search of defendant, a cell phone fell out of his pants and that a twenty-two minute call had been made on the phone to one of defendant’s family members. Pruitt v. State, 122 So.3d 806, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 612 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

There was sufficient testimony to support a jury’s verdict that defendant was guilty of bringing contraband into a prison in violation of Miss. Code §47-5-193, as a corrections officer testified that the officer found money in defendant’s bra. Weems v. State, 63 So.3d 579, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 224 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), cert. dismissed, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 302 (Miss. June 16, 2011).

Defendant’s conviction for possession of cellular phones while confined in a correctional facility, in violation of Miss. Code. Ann. §47-5-193, was proper because there was ample evidence for the jury to find that defendant knowingly possessed the contraband phones, which were hidden in the crotch area of his thermal long underwear under four pairs of boxer shorts. Lynch v. State, 24 So.3d 1043, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 15 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Defendant’s argument that his conviction for bringing contraband into a jail facility must be reversed and rendered because the record lacked proof that the jacket in which the marijuana was found belonged to him lacked merit because (1) defendant’s testimony was the complete opposite of the testimony of three witnesses; (2) defendant’s testimony on cross-examination contradicted his direct testimony because it was not until cross-examination that defendant mentioned taking a jacket from a locker that he once shared with another inmate, and, on direct, defendant had stated that the jacket had come from another locker; (3) a witness testified that the marijuana was found in the sleeve of the jacket that defendant was wearing when he returned to the jail; and (4) a jury considered all of the testimony presented at trial and concluded that defendant was guilty as charged. Weeks v. State, 971 So. 2d 645, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 843 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

3. Limiting instruction.

In a case in which defendant was convicted of violating Miss. Code Ann, §47-5-193, he unsuccessfully argued on appeal that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts where there was no foundation for their admissibility and no showing that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. Defense counsel failed to request a limiting instruction, and the trial judge was not required to issue the limiting instruction sua sponte after defense counsel objected; Rule 105 clearly placed the burden of requesting a Miss. R. Evid. Rule 404(b) limiting instruction upon counsel. Lindsey v. State, 29 So.3d 121, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 89 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

3.5. Presumptive instructions.

Trial court erred in convicting defendant of possessing a cell phone in a correctional facility because the jury was wrongly instructed that they could convict defendant if the state proved defendant took the cell phone into the correctional facility; transporting contraband and possessing contraband are distinctly different. Instructing the jury as to persons taking cell phones into correctional facilities did not track the language of the applicable statute and improperly shifted the burden of proving the defendant was not in constructive possession of the cell phone to the defendant. Moody v. State, 202 So.3d 1235, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 447 (Miss. 2016).

4. Recusal.

In a case in which defendant was convicted of violating Miss. Code Ann, §47-5-193, his argument that the trial judge should have recused himself after speaking to the potential jurors was procedurally barred on appeal since he failed to object or file a motion seeking the trial judge to recuse himself. Lindsey v. State, 29 So.3d 121, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 89 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

5. In general.

Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-193 turns on possession of cellular phones, not ownership. Lynch v. State, 24 So.3d 1043, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 15 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

6. Constitutionality.

In a prosecution of defendant for possession of contraband in a correctional facility under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-193, defendant’s argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague was without merit. Houston v. State, 150 So.3d 157, 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 636 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

7. Applicability.

In a prosecution of defendant for possession of contraband in a correctional facility under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-193, defendant’s argument that the statute’s designation of “offender” did include him was meritless. Houston v. State, 150 So.3d 157, 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 636 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

8. Burden of proof.

Defendant was indicted and convicted under the first sentence of the statute, for possession of a cell phone in a correctional facility. Therefore, the State of Mississippi was not required to prove that the county jail was property belonging to the county and that the property was occupied or used by offenders because these elements were not essential to the possession of a cell phone crime charged under the first sentence. Smith v. State, 275 So.3d 100, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 238 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

State of Mississippi was not required to prove that defendant was an inmate at the county jail because this factual allegation did not change the crime charged as all that the statute required was that defendant be either a person or offender in possession of a cell phone at a correctional facility. Smith v. State, 275 So.3d 100, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 238 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Nature and elements of offense of conveying contraband to state prisoner. 64 A.L.R.4th 902.

Validity, construction, and application of state statute criminalizing possession of contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution. 45 A.L.R.5th 767.

Cross References —

Additional prohibitions, see §47-5-193.

Penalties for violations of this section and §47-5-193, see §47-5-195.

Cross References —

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any felony violation, see §99-19-73.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

In a prosecution of defendant for possession of contraband in a correctional facility, the trial court properly sentenced defendant to serve fifteen years with five years suspended pursuant to this section. Houston v. State, 150 So.3d 157, 2014 Miss. App. LEXIS 636 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Nature and elements of offense of conveying contraband to state prisoner. 64 A.L.R.4th 902.

Validity, construction, and application of state statute criminalizing possession of contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution. 45 A.L.R.5th 767.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity, construction, and application of state statute criminalizing possession of contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution. 45 A.L.R.5th 767.

Validity, under federal constitution, of regulations, rules or statutes requiring random or mass drug testing of public employees or persons whose employment is regulated by state, local or federal government. 86 A.L.R. Fed. 420.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Conviction proper.

2. Attorney disbarment.

3. Sufficient evidence.

4. Indictment.

1. Conviction proper.

Defendant’s conviction for the sale of marijuana within a correctional facility in violation of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-198(1) was proper because the trial judge did not need to recuse himself from the trial since nothing in the judge’s response gave rise to overcome the presumption of impartiality. Jackson v. State, 962 So. 2d 649, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 104 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 962 So. 2d 38, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 434 (Miss. 2007).

2. Attorney disbarment.

Where the attorney was charged with selling marijuana to his client while he was incarcerated at the county jail, the attorney was convicted of the sale of marijuana within a correctional facility in a violation of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-198 and disbarred from the practice of law. Miss. Bar v. Jackson, 987 So. 2d 930, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 84 (Miss. 2008).

3. Sufficient evidence.

Trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motions for a directed verdict, JNOV, or a new trial, as the evidence showed that defendant told the warden that the pills hidden inside the waistband of her pants were controlled substances. Warren v. State, 187 So.3d 616, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 137 (Miss. 2016).

Evidence supported defendant’s conviction of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance inside a correctional facility because (1) an officer observed defendant and another inmate stand by the exterior door to a jail’s yard, bend down, and retrieve items from underneath the door; [2] an officer found a small opening that could allow someone to slip an item through the door; and (3) officers found marijuana in envelopes in a blanket that defendant tried to pass to the other inmate when the inmates were searched as they reentered the jail. Graham v. State, 204 So.3d 329, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance within a correctional facility after jailers found marijuana, aluminum foil, and a blunt cigar inside of a deodorant container she left for her incarcerated husband; defendant claimed it would have been impossible for her to hide the drugs in the deodorant container during the three to five minutes it took to get from the store where she purchased the deodorant to the jail. However, defendant’s appeal was based on a factual dispute that the jury resolved in the state’s favor, and the jury obviously rejected defendant’s impossibility defense. Woods v. State, 19 So.3d 817, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 721 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Where the State presented testimony from an inmate and correction officers that defendant attempted to plant a brown paper bag containing marijuana on another inmate, the evidence was sufficient to convict him for possession of marijuana in a correctional facility in violation of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-198. The trial court did not err by denying his motion for directed verdict. Stewart v. State, 986 So. 2d 304, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 348 (Miss. 2008).

4. Indictment.

Indictment, which tracked the language of this section, was sufficient, and, because neither the crime nor the penalty depended upon the identity of the controlled substance, the indictment for possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility did not need to identify the substance allegedly possessed. Warren v. State, 187 So.3d 616, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 137 (Miss. 2016).

Although defendant asserted that the indictment was fatally defective for failure to specify the contraband that defendant conspired to possess in a correctional facility, the two count indictment included the essential statutory elements of the charges against defendant and provided sufficient notice so that defendant suffered no prejudice in preparing a defense. Furthermore, defendant was procedurally barred from arguing an objection to a multi-count indictment on appeal because defendant failed to raise the objection at trial. Graham v. State, 204 So.3d 329, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 113 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss due to a defective indictment where the indictment failed to specify the nature of the controlled substance that defendant was alleged to have possessed in violation of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-198, and the State’s failure to include the identity of the controlled substance prevented defendant from preparing a defense that her possession of the controlled substance was lawful. Warren v. State, 187 So.3d 631, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 40 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015), rev'd, 187 So.3d 616, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 137 (Miss. 2016).

Although Mississippi caselaw on the issue of whether an indictment sufficiently specifies the nature of the controlled substance primarily addresses possession and trafficking of controlled substances pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §41-29-139 (Supp. 2014), the Court of Appeals of Mississippi sees no reason why this same reasoning should not extend to possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-198. Warren v. State, 187 So.3d 631, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 40 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015), rev'd, 187 So.3d 616, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 137 (Miss. 2016).

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§47-5-201 through47-5-209 provided for the establishment and operation of a volunteer program in the state department of corrections known as M.O.V.E. (Mississippi Offenders and Volunteer Effort) and authorized county and municipal participation.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, thereby removing the repeal date.

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Cross References —

Mississippi Prison Industries Act of 1990, see §47-5-531.

Authorization to transfer and expend monies from Prison Industries Fund to carry out purposes of sections47-5-301 et seq., and47-5-501 et seq., see §47-5-565.

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 180.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed, Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Working of prisoners in penitentiary, see §47-5-126.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Leasing or hiring of county prisoner, see §47-1-19.

Correctional industries work programs, see §§47-5-501 et seq.

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 180.

CJS.

18 C.J.S., Convicts §§ 23 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 180.

CJS.

18 C.J.S., Convicts § 24.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-309 set forth exceptions to the mandatory purchase provisions of the Penitentiary-Made Goods Law.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 27-104-1 provides that the term “Fiscal Management Board” shall mean the “Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Sale of penitentiary made products to the public, see §47-5-305.

Entities to whom prison-made goods or services produced by corporation from prison industries may be sold, see §47-5-549.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 180.

CJS.

18 C.J.S., Convicts § 24.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-7-2 provides that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor,” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer.

Section 27-104-6 provides that whenever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Auditor of correctional system, generally, §47-5-35.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Cross References —

Establishment of prison industries fund, see §47-5-66.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-325 prescribed penalties for selling penitentiary-made products on the open market.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws, 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Traveling expenses of state officers and employees, see §25-3-41.

Uniform per diem compensation for officers and employees of state boards, commissions and agencies, see §25-3-69.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-1-451 provides that wherever the term “Office of General Services” appears in any law the same shall mean the Department of Finance and Administration.

Cross References —

Establishment of prison industries fund, see §47-5-66.

Provisions of the Penitentiary-Made Goods Law, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 180.

CJS.

18 C.J.S., Convicts §§ 23 et seq.

Cross References —

Prison Agricultural Enterprises Fund, see §47-5-66.

Noxubee County Prison Work Program to be established pursuant to §§47-5-451 through47-5-469 in order to achieve legislative intent set out in this section, see §47-5-1209.

Cross References —

Definition of “prison agricultural enterprises” for purposes of Mississippi Prison Industries Act of 1990, see §47-5-539.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

Federal Aspects—

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 USCS § 501(c)(3).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Under Section 47-5-401, the board of supervisors has no authority to control the placement of state inmates in the county jail. Welch, October 4, 1995, A.G. Op. #95-0656.

As long as the provisions Sections 21-19-11 and 47-5-401 are followed, a municipality may contract with the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the use of state inmates housed at community work centers to perform public service work such as the type authorized by Section 21-19-11 on private property. Trice, August 30, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0467.

A state inmate who is in the custody of a county may be worked in a public service work program; however, such work program is restricted to the performance of public service work for counties, municipalities, the state, or nonprofit charitable organizations, as defined by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Johnson, Jan. 7, 2000, A.G. Op. #99-0707.

A county board of supervisors is authorized to use community work release center prisoners to pick up county garbage and deposit it in county-operated garbage trucks for disposal. Shepard, Feb. 18, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0069.

Assuming that inmates are not performing their duties for a private contractor, a county school district may use inmates to clean and remove garbage at a school cafeteria. Mayfield, Apr. 27, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0251.

A board of supervisors, by appropriate resolution, may establish joint work programs to be operated under the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff, and inmates participating in such a program may be housed in work camps in lieu of confinement in jail, which need not be within the corporate limits of the county seat. DeLaughter, Mar. 8, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0042.

The Mississippi Department of Corrections is under no obligation to pay counties for the costs associated with the care of inmates participating in a joint state/county work program under Section 47-5-401(1). Epps, Feb. 28, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0764.

County inmates in the custody of the sheriff would not be allowed to work on properties of a nonprofit charitable organization that does not provide food to charities. Griffith, Sept. 26, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0496.

A court may authorize participants in a Community Service, Restitution and Work Program to perform work service for qualified nonprofit charitable organizations as defined by Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Weathers, Dec. 27, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0549.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Defendant’s right to credit for time spent in halfway house, rehabilitation center, or similar restrictive environment as a condition of pretrial release. 29 A.L.R.4th 240.

Denial of state prisoner’s application for, or revocation of, participation in work or study release program or furlough program as actionable under Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS § 1983). 55 A.L.R. Fed. 208.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provides for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

State Department of Corrections, generally, see §§47-5-8 et seq.

Commitment of offenders to custody of department of corrections, see §47-5-110.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Duties of sheriff with regard to jail prisoners, generally, see §19-25-69.

Powers and duties of state board of corrections, generally, see §47-5-20.

Work camps for participating inmates, see §47-5-407.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 162 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Extending limits of place of confinement of eligible inmate, see §47-5-405.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sections 47-5-401 et. seq. particularly Section 47-5-407 allows any county with a work program to establish a work camp wherein inmates participating in the program may be housed in lieu of confinement in the jail. Such a camp need not be within the corporate limits of the county seat. Bradley, July 8, 1996, A.G. Op. #96-0335.

A board of supervisors, by appropriate resolution, may establish joint work programs to be operated under the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff, and inmates participating in such a program may be housed in work camps in lieu of confinement in jail, which need not be within the corporate limits of the county seat. DeLaughter, Mar. 8, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0042.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Forfeiture of earned time in event of escape from state penal institution, see §47-5-139.

Reward for apprehension of escaped state prisoner, see §47-5-147.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

Penalties for state and county prisoners who escape from custody, see §§97-9-43 through97-9-49.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Failure of prisoner to return at expiration of work furlough or other permissive release period as crime of escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 658.

Temporary unauthorized absence of prisoner as escape or attempted escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 695.

Am. Jur.

27A Am. Jur. 2d, Escape §§ 1 et seq.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 229.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Prohibition against using state prisoners as servants, see §47-5-137.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Earned time allowances for state inmates, see §§47-5-138,47-5-139.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use].

6. Under former §47-5-171.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use].

6. Under former § 47-5-171.

In the absence of a clear statement of legislative intent to the contrary, a prisoner who has been released under a supervised earned release program and later apprehended for violation of the rules promulgated thereunder, is entitled to credit on his sentence for the period of time he was released under such program. Ivory v. State, 403 So. 2d 1284, 1981 Miss. LEXIS 2196 (Miss. 1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-231.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 142-144, 146, 152.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Leave for personal reasons for state inmates, see §47-5-173.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Immunity of public officer from liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 5 A.L.R.4th 773.

Governmental tort liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 6 A.L.R.4th 1155.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq., 211-213.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 26, 50, 123, 124.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

State Department and Board of Corrections, generally, see §§47-5-8 et seq.

Joint state-county work program, see §§47-5-451 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1984, ch. 471, § 128, provided for an automatic repeal of this section from and after July 1, 1986. Subsequently, Laws of 1986, ch. 413, § 126, effective from and after passage (approved March 28, 1986) repealed § 128 of ch. 471, Laws of 1984, thereby removing the repeal date.

Cross References —

Prisoners permitted to work on public roads or other public works, see §47-1-9.

County prisoners may provide certain public service work, see §47-1-41.

Use of offenders as servants prohibited, see §47-5-137.

Use of prisoners in county jails to maintain certain historic cemeteries and serve food in conjunction with nonprofit organizations, see §47-5-441.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Failure of prisoner to return at expiration of work furlough or other permissive release period as crime of escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 658.

Sex discrimination in treatment of jail or prison inmates. 12 A.L.R.4th 1219.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Denial of state prisoner’s application for, or revocation of, participation in work or study release program or furlough program as actionable under Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS sec. 1983). 55 A.L.R. Fed. 208.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq., 222 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq., 142 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 65-1-1 provides that whenever the term “State Highway Commission,” or the term “commission” meaning the State Highway Commission, appears in the laws of this state, it shall mean the Mississippi Transportation Commission.

Cross References —

Prisoners permitted to work on public roads or other public works, see §47-1-9.

County prisoners may provide certain public service work, see §47-1-41.

Use of offenders as servants prohibited, see §47-5-137.

Use of prisoners in county jails to pick up trash, see §§47-5-431 et seq.

Federal Aspects—

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 USCS § 501(c)(3).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Pursuant to this section the sheriff may use county inmate labor to clear, clean, stabilize, preserve, maintain and restore historic cemeteries in the county, public or private. The board of supervisors may authorize the sheriff to use county equipment and property to repair and maintain historic cemeteries pursuant to G.S. 39-5-19. Brown, July 7, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0284.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1985, ch. 489, § 11, provided for the repeal of the Joint State-County Work Program (§§47-5-451 through47-5-469). Subsequently, Laws of 1987, ch. 384, § 11, amended Laws of 1985, ch. 489, § 11, by removing the repeal provision.

Amendment Notes —

The 2008 amendment added “or churches” following “nonprofit charitable organizations” twice in the first sentence of (3); and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

Cross References —

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

Noxubee County Work Program established pursuant to the authority of §§47-5-451 through §§47-5-469, see §47-5-1209.

Federal Aspects—

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 USCS § 501(c)(3).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Work programs.

Without waiving the procedural bar to the inmate’s claim that his sentence was unconstitutional, the court held that the inmate was properly charged under Miss. Code Ann. §97-9-45 and entered a plea of guilty to the escape; the sentence of three years was well within the maximum prescribed by the statute, which referred to prisoners sentenced to the Mississippi Department of Corrections and allowed a maximum sentence of five years, and thus the inmate was not entitled to post-conviction relief; although the inmate was in custody and on a work program for a county at the time of the escape, the inmate was considered under the Department’s jurisdiction for purposes of §97-9-45 because (1) the inmate’s original burglary sentence required imprisonment in the “penitentiary” under Miss. Code Ann. §97-17-23, which term meant any facility under the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-3, (2) commitment to any institution within the jurisdiction of the Department was to the Department, not a particular institution pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-110, and (3) under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-451, the Department recommended rules concerning the participation of inmates in work programs. Gardner v. State, 848 So. 2d 900, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 570 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The creation of Christmas ornaments for display on public streets and city property constitutes public service work but the creation of Christmas ornaments for advertisement and sale by cities to other cities or anyone in the private sector does not constitute public service work. Shepard, Dec. 18, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0943.

Legislature intended that eligibility provision of Miss. Code §47-5-451(2) exclude inmates who previously had been convicted of violent crimes, as well as those who were presently serving time for such convictions; further, this exclusion would apply to juveniles, only if they were tried and convicted as adults, but would not apply to juvenile delinquency adjudications. Lucas, Jan. 6, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0977.

It was intended that eligibility provision of Miss. Code Section 47-5-45(2) [repealed] apply only to those work programs that are authorized and created under provisions of Miss. Code Section 47-5-451. Lucas, Jan. 6, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0977.

A board of supervisors, by appropriate resolution, may establish joint work programs to be operated under the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff, and inmates participating in such a program may be housed in work camps in lieu of confinement in jail, which need not be within the corporate limits of the county seat. DeLaughter, Mar. 8, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0042.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Defendant’s right to credit for time spent in halfway house, rehabilitation center, or similar restrictive environment as condition of pretrial release. 29 A.L.R.4th 240.

Denial of state prisoner’s application for, or revocation of, participation in work or study release program or furlough program as actionable under Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 USCS § 1983). 55 A.L.R. Fed. 208.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 162 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Prisoners permitted to work on public roads or other public works, see §47-1-9.

USe of county prisoners to preserve and maintain certain historic cemeteries, see §47-5-441.

Cross References —

Duties of sheriff with regard to jail prisoners, generally, see §19-25-69.

Powers and duties of state board of corrections, generally, see §47-5-20.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

Work camps for participating inmates, see §47-5-455.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

Extending limits of place of confinement of eligible inmate, see §47-5-453.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Forfeiture of earned time in event of escape from state penal institution, see §47-5-139.

Reward for apprehension of escaped state prisoner, see §47-5-147.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

Penalties for state and county prisoners who escape from custody, see §§97-9-43 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Failure of prisoner to return at expiration of work furlough or other permissive release period as crime of escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 658.

Temporary unauthorized absence of prisoner as escape or attempted escape. 76 A.L.R.3d 695.

Am. Jur.

27A Am. Jur. 2d, Escape §§ 1 et seq.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 229.

Cross References —

Prohibition against using state prisoners as servants, see §47-5-137.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

A board of supervisors, by appropriate resolution, may establish joint work programs to be operated under the exclusive jurisdiction of the sheriff, and inmates participating in such a program may be housed in work camps in lieu of confinement in jail, which need not be within the corporate limits of the county seat. DeLaughter, Mar. 8, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0042.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Earned time allowances for state inmates, see §§47-5-138,47-5-139.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

I. Under Current Law.

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use].

II. Under Former §47-5-171.

6. In general.

I. Under Current Law.

1. In general.

A habeas corpus petitioner who had been a death row inmate, and as such had not been eligible for earned time credit, was entitled to full earned time credit for the years of incarceration on death row where (1) his conviction and sentence were found to be illegal, (2) he subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and (3) he received a 20-year sentence. Voyles v. State, 520 So. 2d 501, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 166 (Miss. 1988).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use].

II. Under Former § 47-5-171.

6. In general.

In the absence of a clear statement of legislative intent to the contrary, a prisoner who has been released under a supervised earned release program and later apprehended for violation of the rules promulgated thereunder, is entitled to credit on his sentence for the period of time he was released under such program. Ivory v. State, 403 So. 2d 1284, 1981 Miss. LEXIS 2196 (Miss. 1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 218-231.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 142-144, 146, 152.

Cross References —

Leave for personal reasons for state inmates, see §47-5-173.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Immunity of public officer from liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 5 A.L.R.4th 773.

Governmental tort liability for injuries caused by negligently released individual. 6 A.L.R.4th 1155.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 162, 211-213.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 26, 50, 123, 124.

Cross References —

State department and board of corrections, generally, see §§47-5-8 et seq.

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Public service work program, see §§47-5-401 et seq.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 176 et seq.

CJS.

72 C.J.S., Prisons and Rights of Prisoners §§ 17, 21 et seq.

Cross References —

Mississippi Prison Industries Act of 1990, see §47-5-531.

Authorization to transfer and expend monies from Prison Industries Fund to carry out purposes of sections47-5-301 et seq., and47-5-501 et seq., see §47-5-565.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

So long as the provision of this section and Section 21-19-11 are followed, a municipality may contract with the Mississippi Department of Corrections to use inmate labor for public service work such as the cleaning of private property under Section 21-19-11. Pierce, Dec. 19, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0676.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Computation of incarceration time under work-release or “hardship” sentences. 28 A.L.R.4th 1265.

Defendant’s right to credit for time spent in halfway house, rehabilitation center, or similar restrictive environment as a condition of pretrial release. 29 A.L.R.4th 240.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 22, 176-180.

Editor’s Notes —

Former section47-5-503 provided that the department of corrections was to implement and administer correctional industries work programs, and for the participation of other agencies. For provisions governing prison industries work programs, see §§47-5-531 through47-5-575.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 57-1-2 provides that the term “Board of Economic Development” shall mean the “Mississippi Development Authority”.

Laws of 1984, ch. 488, § 341, provides as follows:

“SECTION 341. Nothing in this act shall affect or defeat any claim, assessment, appeal, suit, right or cause of action which accrued prior to the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective, whether such assessments, appeals, suits, claims or actions shall have been begun before the date on which the applicable sections of this act become effective or shall thereafter be begun.”

Cross References —

Creation of the office of general services, see §7-1-451.

Duty of Department of Community and Economic Development to assist Department of Corrections in selection and evaluation of suitable industries, see §57-1-55.

Editor’s Notes —

Former section 47-5-511 provided for the selection of offenders eligible to participate in the program.

Cross References —

Reporting requirements and disposition of funds received by state officials, see §7-9-21.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected a typographical error in the section’s subsection designators. The subsection number “(1)” at the beginning of the section was deleted. The Joint Committee ratified the correction at its August 5, 2008, meeting.

Cross References —

Penitentiary-made Goods Law of 1978, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

Correctional Industries Work Programs, see §47-5-501.

Prison Industry Enhancement Program, see §47-5-1251.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 22, 176-180.

Cross References —

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 22, 176-180.

Cross References —

Prison Industries Fund, see §47-5-66.

Allocation of one-half of proceeds of Inmate Welfare Fund for use by corporation established under this section, see §47-5-158.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 22, 176-180.

Cross References —

Secretary of State, see §7-3-5.

Department of Finance and Administration, see §27-104-1.

Rehabilitation services of State Department of Rehabilitation Services, see §37-33-157.

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Federal Aspects—

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 USCS § 501(c)(3).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Participants of the Prison Industry Enhancement (PIE) program are employees not of the Mississippi Prison Industries Corporation, but may be considered employees of the private employers with which the Mississippi Department of Corrections contracts for workers’ compensation purposes and, therefore, the Mississippi State Agencies Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Trust cannot extend workers’ compensation coverage to those inmates participating in the PIE program. Self, May 5, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0189.

Cross References —

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Definition of “prison agricultural enterprises” for the purposes of §§47-5-351 through47-5-357, see §47-5-353.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment deleted the former last two sentences of (1), which read: “The superintendent for the Parchman facility of the Department of Corrections shall attend all meetings of the board of directors. In addition, the superintendents of the Rankin County and Greene County facilities of the Department of Corrections shall attend any meeting of the board of directors wherein the business relates to their respective facilities.”

Cross References —

State Commissioner of Corrections, see §47-5-24.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-7-2 provides that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor,” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer.

Section 27-104-6 provides that whenever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Department of Finance and Administration, see §27-104-1.

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Prison agricultural enterprises, see §§47-5-351 et seq.

Cross References —

Secretary of State, see §7-3-5.

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Cross References —

Penitentiary-made Goods Law of 1978, see §§47-5-301 et seq.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment rewrote the section.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions §§ 22, 176-180.

Editor’s Notes —

This section was reenacted without change by Laws of 1995, ch. 547, § 23, eff from and after passage (approved April 13, 1996).

Cross References —

Employment of offenders within the custody of the department or prison industries through the Prison Industry Enhancement Program, see §47-5-1251.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 7-7-2 provides that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor,” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer.

Section 27-104-6 provides that whenever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Prison Industries Fund, see §47-5-66.

Editor’s Notes —

Section 71-3-1 provides that the words “workmen’s compensation” shall mean “workers’ compensation” wherever they appear in the code.

Cross References —

Public Procurement Review Board, see §27-104-7.

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-572 prohibited private correctional facilities from importing goods made by inmates in another state.

Cross References —

Department of Corrections, see §47-5-8.

Cross References —

Public Records Act of 1983, see §25-61-1 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-577 was entitled: Repeal of Sections47-5-531 through47-5-575.

Cross References —

Applicability of this section to a child placed on probation, see §43-21-159.

Parole eligibility conditioned on submitting to chemical analysis test to detect presence of alcohol or controlled substance, see §47-7-17.

Power of department of corrections to make rules requiring a parolee to submit to a chemical analysis test to detect presence of alcohol or controlled substance, see §47-7-17.

Probation on earned probation eligibility conditioned on probationer submitting to chemical analysis test to detect presence of alcohol or controlled substance, see §§47-7-35,47-7-47.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Admissibility under state law of hospital record relating to intoxication or sobriety of patient. 80 A.L.R.3d 456.

Driving while intoxicated: duty of law enforcement officer to offer suspect chemical sobriety test under implied consent law. 95 A.L.R.3d 710.

Necessity and sufficiency of proof that tests of blood alcohol concentration were conducted in conformance with prescribed methods. 96 A.L.R.3d 745.

Request before submitting to chemical sobriety test to communicate with counsel as refusal to take test. 97 A.L.R.3d 852.

Propriety of requirement, as condition of probation, that defendant refrain from use of intoxicants. 19 A.L.R.4th 1251.

Propriety, as condition of probation granted pursuant to 18 USCS § 3651, of requiring that probationer refrain from consumption of alcoholic beverages. 37 A.L.R. Fed. 843.

Propriety of imposing special parole term as part of sentence, under 21 USCS § 846, for a conspiracy to violate Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. 48 A.L.R. Fed. 767.

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 66, 67 et seq.

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole §§ 38-43, 59, 60, 62.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Admissibility under state law of hospital record relating to intoxication or sobriety of patient. 80 A.L.R.3d 456.

Driving while intoxicated: duty of law enforcement officer to offer suspect chemical sobriety test under implied consent law. 95 A.L.R.3d 710.

Necessity and sufficiency of proof that tests of blood alcohol concentration were conducted in conformance with prescribed methods. 96 A.L.R.3d 745.

Request before submitting to chemical sobriety test to communicate with counsel as refusal to take test. 97 A.L.R.3d 852.

Propriety of requirement, as condition of probation, that defendant refrain from use of intoxicants. 19 A.L.R.4th 1251.

Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of chemist, toxicologist, technician, narcotics expert, or similar nonmedical specialist in substance analysis. 74 A.L.R.4th 388.

Propriety, as condition of probation granted pursuant to 18 USCS § 3651, of requiring that probationer refrain from consumption of alcoholic beverages. 37 A.L.R. Fed. 843.

Propriety of imposing special parole term as part of sentence, under 21 USCS § 846, for a conspiracy to violate Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. 48 A.L.R. Fed. 767.

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 64 et seq.

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole §§ 38-43, 59, 60, 62.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Admissibility under state law of hospital record relating to intoxication or sobriety of patient. 80 A.L.R.3d 456.

Driving while intoxicated: duty of law enforcement officer to offer suspect chemical sobriety test under implied consent law. 95 A.L.R.3d 710.

Necessity and sufficiency of proof that tests of blood alcohol concentration were conducted in conformance with prescribed methods. 96 A.L.R.3d 745.

Request before submitting to chemical sobriety test to communicate with counsel as refusal to take test. 97 A.L.R.3d 852.

Propriety of requirement, as condition of probation, that defendant refrain from use of intoxicants. 19 A.L.R.4th 1251.

Right of indigent defendant in state criminal case to assistance of chemist, toxicologist, technician, narcotics expert, or similar nonmedical specialist in substance analysis. 74 A.L.R.4th 388.

Propriety, as condition of probation granted pursuant to 18 USCS § 3651, of requiring that probationer refrain from consumption of alcoholic beverages. 37 A.L.R. Fed. 843.

Propriety of imposing special parole term as part of sentence, under 21 USCS § 846, for a conspiracy to violate Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. 48 A.L.R. Fed. 767.

Am. Jur.

59 Am. Jur. 2d, Pardon and Parole §§ 66, 67 et seq.

CJS.

67A C.J.S., Pardon and Parole §§ 38-43, 59, 60, 62.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

This section was reenacted without change by Laws of 2018, ch. 406, § 1, effective from and after July 1, 2018. Since the language of the section as it appears in the main volume is unaffected by the reenactment, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Conditions relating to placement of more than one prisoner per cell as violation of inmates’ federal constitutional rights. 85 A.L.R. Fed. 308.

Propriety and construction of “totality of conditions” analysis in federal court’s consideration of Eighth Amendment challenge to prison conditions. 85 A.L.R. Fed. 750.

Am. Jur.

60 Am. Jur. 2d, Penal and Correctional Institutions § 44.5.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted and amended the section by making minor stylistic changes throughout.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

30-day report by State Parole Board, including evaluation of utilization of powers which tend to reduce the prison system population, see §47-5-709.

Determination by Governor as to existence of conditions for declaration of state of emergency, see §47-5-711.

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

24 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 467, Proof of Unconstitutional Prison Conditions.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Termination of action if the Governor has not exercised his powers within 14 days after receipt of the reports specified in this section and §47-5-709, see §47-5-711.

60-day report of overcrowded prison conditions, see §47-5-717.

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Termination of action if the Governor has not exercised his powers within 14 days after receipt of the reports specified in this section and §47-5-707, see §47-5-711.

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted and amended the section by substituting “paragraph (a) or (b)” for “paragraphs (a) or (b)” in the last paragraph.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

30-day report of overcrowded prison conditions, see §47-5-707.

Options of the Governor upon receipt of the report specified in this section, see §47-5-719.

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted and amended the section by substituting “paragraph (a) or (b)” for “paragraphs (a) or (b)” and making a minor stylistic change in the next-to-last paragraph.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Sections 47-5-701 through 47-5-731 were repealed by operation of law on July 1, 2004.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

The propriety of conditioning parole on defendant’s not entering specified geographical area. 54 A.L.R.5th 743.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Section 47-5-731, which is the repealer for this section, was amended by § 1, Chapter 336, Laws of 2018, to extend the date of the repealer to July 1, 2020. The section heading is set out above to reflect the amended postponed repeal date. Since the section text as it appears in the bound volume is unaffected by the amendment of the repeal date, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted and amended the section by substituting “eligibility dates” for “eligibility date” preceding “such as advancing.”

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Editor’s Notes —

For repeal date of this section, see §47-5-731.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2006 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2014 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2018 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Applicability of general conditions of parole to advancement of parole eligibility dates under Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act, see §47-7-3.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of Chapter 327, Laws of 2018, effective from and after July 1, 2018 (approved March 7, 2018), amended this section. Section 16 of Chapter 406, Laws of 2018, effective from and after July 1, 2018 (approved March 21, 2018), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 16 of Chapter 406, Laws of 2018, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 from July 1, 2002 until July 1, 2004.

The 2005 amendment reenacted and amended the section by extending the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 from “July 1, 2004” until “July 1, 2006.”

The 2006 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 from “July 1, 2006” until “July 1, 2008.”

The 2008 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 by substituting “July 1, 2012” for “July 1, 2008.”

The 2012 amendment reenacted and amended the section by extending the repealer provision from “July 1, 2012” to “July 1, 2014.”

The 2014 amendment reenacted and amended the section by extending the repealer provision from “July 1, 2014” to “July 1, 2018.”

The first 2018 amendment (ch. 327) extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 by substituting “July 1, 2020” for “July 1, 2018.”

The second 2018 amendment (ch. 406) extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-701 through47-5-729 by substituting “July 1, 2022” for “July 1, 2018.”

Federal Aspects—

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, see 42 USCS §§ 1997 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Administrative review procedures.

Inmate’s statutory due-process rights were not violated because the inmate did not present any evidence to refute the finding of the Mississippi Department of Corrections that he made a threatening statement to another inmate, and the inmate was present at the hearing, acknowledged the allegations, and admitted the rule violation; the inmate did not request the presence of witnesses or ask to present evidence prior to his disciplinary hearing. State v. Stafford, 237 So.3d 1280, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).

Remanding to the circuit court for further review would serve no purpose and would be judicially inefficient since an inmate’s claim that he was denied statutory due process had no realistic chance of success; the inmate did not request or retain counsel, nor did he request that witnesses or evidence be presented at his disciplinary hearing, and the inmate admitted that he made a threatening statement to another inmate. State v. Stafford, 237 So.3d 1280, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 74 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018).

Appellant’s motion for post-conviction collateral relief was properly dismissed because it was barred as a successive motion Miss. Code Ann. §99-39-23(6) (Supp. 2011), and he did not meet an exception. Rather, appellant raised issues of inmate classification that were within the administrative purview of the department of corrections under Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-801 –47-5-807 (Rev. 2004) and not an issue properly brought in a post-conviction collateral relief motion. Cosner v. State, 111 So.3d 111, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 97 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

Inmate’s appeal of a judgment denying his motion to mandate parole eligibility on his life sentence pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act was dismissed under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2) because the inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies; the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) had determined that the inmate was ineligible for parole consideration by the parole board, but the record was completely bare as to any proof that the inmate ever exhausted his administrative remedies or even voiced his grievance through the MDOC’s administrative-review procedure. Keys v. State, 67 So.3d 783, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), rev'd, 67 So.3d 758, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 389 (Miss. 2011).

Because Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-1003(3) provided that reclassifying an inmate from house arrest was within the Department of Corrections’ exclusive jurisdiction, and because an inmate had not exhausted the inmate’s administrative remedies in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-801,47-5-803(2), the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the inmate’s postconviction motion. Hollingsworth v. State, 66 So.3d 1254, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 438 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Inmate who is uncertain about the operation of his sentence and desires clarity should pursue administrative review procedures before turning to court. Burns v. State, 933 So. 2d 329, 2006 Miss. App. LEXIS 495 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).

Federal Aspects—

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, see 42 USCS §§ 1997 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Stay of proceedings.

3. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

1. In general.

Circuit court erred in dismissing an inmate’s complaint for judicial review of a loss of privileges due to a rule violation report because the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies and sought judicial review within thirty days of receipt of the final decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; although the circuit court was presented with an incomplete record due to the inmate’s failure to file certain documentation, such failure did not preclude reversal. Willis v. Westley, 243 So.3d 805, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018), overruled in part, Jobe v. State, 288 So.3d 403, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 612 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Parole eligibility did not clearly fall under the purview of administrative-review procedure. Therefore, the appellate court, in determining whether the Mississippi Department of Corrections correctly computed the date of an inmate’s parole eligibility, followed the rule that inmates could, but were not required to, use the administrative-review procedure as a way of challenging parole eligibility. Brown v. State, 230 So.3d 1069, 2017 Miss. App. LEXIS 156 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017).

Inmate’s disciplinary complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he made a timely filing after exhausting his administrative remedies, as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803 and Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807; the circuit court did not perform its full review function when it determined the inmate’s constitutional rights were not violated. Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 464 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Inmate’s argument that other prisoners were transferred from his custody status back to a less restrictive custody status, while he was not reclassified, was an issue which arose after reclassification, with no indication that it was properly presented for administrative relief; it was therefore not properly presented before the appellate court. Hurns v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 878 So. 2d 223, 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 162 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 878 So. 2d 67, 2004 Miss. LEXIS 918 (Miss. 2004).

A defendant who wishes to challenge the revocation of his probation need not pursue the administrative remedies set out in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803, as only a court can continue or revoke a defendant’s probation. Rodriguez v. State, 839 So. 2d 561, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 131 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

The statute prohibits the state courts from hearing inmate complaints unless and until the prisoner exhausts the administrative review procedure. If a prisoner prematurely petitions the circuit court, the statute requires the court to stay the complaint for 90 days to allow completion of the administrative review procedure. Clary v. Lee, 763 So. 2d 921, 2000 Miss. App. LEXIS 335 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

2. Stay of proceedings.

Inmate could not seek judicial relief on his claim that the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) improperly calculated his earned time credit on his sentence because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2). The judicial proceedings were to be stayed for 90 days until the inmate filed a complaint with the Administrative Remedies Program of the MDOC and the Administrative Remedies Program adjudicated the complaint. Guy v. State, 915 So. 2d 508, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 898 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Where an inmate had completed the administrative review procedure, there was no reason for the trial court to stay his complaint for 90 days. Clary v. Lee, 763 So. 2d 921, 2000 Miss. App. LEXIS 335 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).

3. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Inmate’s appeal of a judgment denying his motion to mandate parole eligibility on his life sentence pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act was dismissed under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2) because the inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies; the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) had determined that the inmate was ineligible for parole consideration by the parole board, but the record was completely bare as to any proof that the inmate ever exhausted his administrative remedies or even voiced his grievance through the MDOC’s administrative-review procedure. Keys v. State, 67 So.3d 783, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), rev'd, 67 So.3d 758, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 389 (Miss. 2011).

Because Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-1003(3) provided that reclassifying an inmate from house arrest was within the Department of Corrections’ exclusive jurisdiction, and because an inmate had not exhausted the inmate’s administrative remedies in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. §§47-5-801,47-5-803(2), the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the inmate’s postconviction motion. Hollingsworth v. State, 66 So.3d 1254, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 438 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011).

Court of appeals was without jurisdiction to consider an inmate’s claims that a trial court erred in dismissing his petitions to show cause and clarify his sentence because there was no indication in the record that the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies on those claims; pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. ’ 47-5-803, the petitions had to be handled initially under administrative-review procedures, rather than in the courts. Walker v. State, 35 So.3d 555, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 167 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Because there was clearly no evidence in the record showing that an inmate exhausted his administrative remedies through the Administrative Remedy Program of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2), the trial court should have stayed the proceedings for ninety days to allow time for the inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies; however, a reversal of the case would be futile because the trial court record was thorough, and the MDOC clearly provided the trial court with sufficient information to determine whether the inmate’s sentence had been properly computed. Lee v. Kelly, 34 So.3d 1203, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 75 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Although an inmate was incarcerated outside of the state, the inmate was subject to imprisonment in Mississippi by virtue of a detainer, and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the inmate’s request for habeas corpus relief to compute the amount of time inmate had to serve on his Mississippi sentence; nevertheless, the inmate was procedurally barred from proceeding with his post-conviction relief claim until he exhausted available administrative remedies. Putnam v. Epps, 963 So. 2d 1232, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 421 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 964 So. 2d 508, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 503 (Miss. 2007).

Trial court erred in denying and dismissing a habeas corpus petition on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies because under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2), the trial court should have stayed the petition for 90 days so that the Mississippi DOC Administrative Remedies Program could consider and rule on petitioner’s complaint. Henley v. Epps, 958 So. 2d 1265, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 414 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Regardless of the fact that the trial court had jurisdiction, the inmate was procedurally barred from proceeding with his post-conviction relief claim until he exhausted the administrative remedies available through the Mississippi Department of Corrections, Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2). Putnam v. Epps, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 36 (Miss. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2007), op. withdrawn, sub. op., 963 So. 2d 1232, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 421 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate’s petition for post-conviction relief and his claim that he should have been released after serving seven and one-half years of his 15 year sentence; neither the appellate court nor the trial court had jurisdiction to review his sentence because the inmate had not exhausted all of his administrative remedies as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2). Sanders v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 912 So. 2d 189, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 713 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Inmate’s amended petition claiming that the points classification system of the Mississippi Department of Corrections was racially discriminatory in violation of equal protection was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim. There was no indication that the inmate went through the Administrative Remedy Program before filing suit on his equal protection/racial discrimination claim as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2). Adams v. Epps, 900 So. 2d 1210, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 145 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. dismissed, 901 So. 2d 1273, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 291 (Miss. 2005).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Construction and applicability.

2. Time for filing.

3. Right to judicial review.

4. Mailbox rule.

5. Appeal dismissed.

6. Service of process.

1. Construction and applicability.

Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807 does not prescribe that the 30-day time limit to appeal from a final agency decision applies only to actions for damages, but rather to any action appealed from an administrative proceeding. Boler v. Bailey, 840 So. 2d 734, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

2. Time for filing.

When an inmate contested the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) revocation of most of inmate’s accrued trusty-time credit, the inmate’s complaint was properly dismissed because (1) the complaint had to be filed within 30 days of MDOC’s decision, and, (2) while MDOC did not prove it was filed more than 30 days after receiving MDOC’s decision dismissing the inmate’s administrative complaint contesting revocation of trusty-time credit, the record showed the inmate did not contest the original decision revoking trusty-time credit within 30 days. King v. McCarty, 196 So.3d 175, 2016 Miss. App. LEXIS 405 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016).

Prisoner’s failure to file his motion for judicial review of a decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections denying his request for earned-time credit within the thirty days allowed by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807 barred his appeal. Hill v. State, 165 So.3d 495, 2015 Miss. App. LEXIS 267 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015).

Motion for judicial review under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807 was properly dismissed by the trial court because an inmate’s underlying claims arising out of a 17-year-old conviction were untimely filed. Hearron v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 22 So.3d 1238, 2009 Miss. App. LEXIS 827 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Prisoner’s circuit court appeal of a jail-time credit grievance was untimely since it was not filed within thirty days after receipt of the final decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ Administrative Remedy Program. Stokes v. State, 984 So. 2d 1089, 2008 Miss. App. LEXIS 374 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate’s petition for writ of habeas corpus relief, which was treated as a petition for post-conviction relief, as under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807, the inmate only had 30 days to appeal the denial of his grievance with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and the inmate did not seek review until more than two months later. Moore v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 936 So. 2d 941, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 973 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005), cert. denied, 2006 Miss. LEXIS 560 (Miss. Aug. 24, 2006).

Appellate court affirmed the denial of an inmate’s petition for post-conviction relief and his claim that he should have been released after serving seven and one-half years of his 15 year sentence; neither the appellate court nor the trial court had jurisdiction to review his sentence because the inmate had not exhausted all of his administrative remedies as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2) as the violations that caused him to lose earned time occurred between 1994 and 2000 and his motion for relief was not filed until 2003. Thus, the inmate did not comply with the 30-day time requirement in Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807. Sanders v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 912 So. 2d 189, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 713 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Trial court determined that defendant, having failed to seek judicial review within 30 days after receipt of the appropriate final decision, did not complete the final step required for judicial review; therefore, it properly determined that the trial court lacked authority to hear defendant’s grievances on the merits. Taylor v. State, 919 So. 2d 209, 2005 Miss. App. LEXIS 420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

Trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition for postconviction relief was properly denied because he had until January 31, 1999 to appeal an administrative judgment, but did not do so until September 19, 2000. Moore v. State, 897 So. 2d 997, 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 945 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), cert. denied, 898 So. 2d 679, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 243 (Miss. 2005).

Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief where the inmate failed to timely file his appeal within 30 days from the final adverse decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections Administrative Remedy Program as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807. Simmons v. Sparkman, 829 So. 2d 1289, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 589 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

Inmate’s motion to show cause was properly dismissed by the trial court where to failed to seek timely judicial review of a department of corrections’ administrative remedies program decision concerning prisoner privacy rights. The inmate failed to seek judicial review of the agency’s final decision within the 30-day time limit of Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807. Edmond v. Anderson, 820 So. 2d 1, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 10 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 959, 123 S. Ct. 383, 154 L. Ed. 2d 311, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 7760 (U.S. 2002).

Defendant’s original petition was not filed until well past the allowable 30-day period; filing within the statutorily-mandated time was jurisdictional. Stanley v. Turner, 846 So. 2d 279, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 836 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied, 846 So. 2d 229, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 536 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

Defendant’s right to assert his claim through a motion for post conviction relief claiming denial of his right to due process of law because he was not afforded a hearing before being terminated from the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) Program was time barred under this section. Brown v. State, 752 So. 2d 464, 1999 Miss. App. LEXIS 686 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).

3. Right to judicial review.

Circuit court erred in dismissing an inmate’s complaint for judicial review of a loss of privileges due to a rule violation report because the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies and sought judicial review within thirty days of receipt of the final decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; although the circuit court was presented with an incomplete record due to the inmate’s failure to file certain documentation, such failure did not preclude reversal. Willis v. Westley, 243 So.3d 805, 2018 Miss. App. LEXIS 171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018), overruled in part, Jobe v. State, 288 So.3d 403, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 612 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Inmate’s appeal of a judgment denying his motion to mandate parole eligibility on his life sentence pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act was dismissed under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2) because the inmate did not exhaust his administrative remedies; the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) had determined that the inmate was ineligible for parole consideration by the parole board, but the record was completely bare as to any proof that the inmate ever exhausted his administrative remedies or even voiced his grievance through the MDOC’s administrative-review procedure. Keys v. State, 67 So.3d 783, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 565 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), rev'd, 67 So.3d 758, 2011 Miss. LEXIS 389 (Miss. 2011).

Because there was clearly no evidence in the record showing that an inmate exhausted his administrative remedies through the Administrative Remedy Program of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803(2), the trial court should have stayed the proceedings for ninety days to allow time for the inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies; however, a reversal of the case would be futile because the trial court record was thorough, and the MDOC clearly provided the trial court with sufficient information to determine whether the inmate’s sentence had been properly computed. Lee v. Kelly, 34 So.3d 1203, 2010 Miss. App. LEXIS 75 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010).

Inmate’s disciplinary complaint should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because he made a timely filing after exhausting his administrative remedies, as required by Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803 and Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807; the circuit court did not perform its full review function when it determined the inmate’s constitutional rights were not violated. Siggers v. Epps, 962 So. 2d 78, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 464 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Although the inmate argued that he was placed in administrative segregation without review by a Mississippi Department of Corrections classification committee and administrative review in excess of 180 days, his assertion was not raised in an administrative review, nor brought before the circuit court, and as such was not reviewable by the appellate court. Hurns v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 878 So. 2d 223, 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 162 (Miss. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 878 So. 2d 67, 2004 Miss. LEXIS 918 (Miss. 2004).

A prisoner’s right to judicial review for administrative discipline under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807 is limited by a preceding section, Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-803, which provides that no state court shall entertain an offender’s grievance unless and until such offender shall have exhausted the remedies as provided in such procedure. Boler v. Bailey, 840 So. 2d 734, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 182 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

There was jurisdiction for a court to consider claims regarding the denial of various credits to sentences. Hill v. State, 838 So. 2d 994, 2002 Miss. App. LEXIS 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002).

While an inmate had no liberty interest in his prison classification, the right to review of final decisions of the classification committee was conferred by statute; thus, the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Mississippi Department of Corrections which removed the inmate from a house arrest program and placed him in the general prison population for a rule violation. Edwards v. Booker, 796 So. 2d 991, 2001 Miss. LEXIS 185 (Miss. 2001).

4. Mailbox rule.

Inmate sought his judicial review within the thirty days required by the statute, and the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider it, because the inmate dropped his motion for judicial review in the prison mailbox within the thirty-day appeal deadline. Jobe v. State, 288 So.3d 403, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 612 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Inmate’s complaint alleging that the prison officials failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate was timely filed under Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807 where the inmate acknowledged receipt of the denial of his claim on March 24, the prison mail log indicated the inmate mailed “legal mail” to the circuit court clerk’s office on April 20, and that was the only mailing the inmate sent to the circuit court clerk. Clay v. Epps, 953 So. 2d 264, 2007 Miss. App. LEXIS 27 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007).

Trial court erred in dismissing inmate’s complaint as untimely as under the “prison mailbox rule,” the date on which a pro se document was deemed filed was the date the prisoner placed it in the mail, not the date it was received by a court clerk; as the prisoner’s proof of service had the document mailed as timely, but it was not received by the county clerk in a timely manner, and the prison mail log had no record of the mailing, the dismissal of the inmate’s complaint was reversed. Easley v. Roach, 879 So. 2d 1041, 2004 Miss. LEXIS 1014 (Miss. 2004).

Dismissal of the inmate’s complaint against the Mississippi Department of Corrections was improper where the mailbox rule applied to his complaint timely signed on July 5, 2001, two days prior to the 30-day deadline, Miss. Code Ann. §47-5-807. Maze v. Miss. Dep't of Corr., 854 So. 2d 1090, 2003 Miss. App. LEXIS 874 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003).

5. Appeal dismissed.

Because an inmate had been released on parole since the filing of his appeal of an order requiring Rule Violation Reports (RVRs) be expunged from his prison record, the issues were moot, and his appeal was dismissed; review of the circuit court’s finding on whether substantial evidence existed to support the inmate’s two individual RVRs, which only subjected the inmate to reclassification and loss of privileges, was not a matter of “public interest.”State v. Runnels, 281 So.3d 148, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Because an inmate had been released on parole since the filing of his appeal of an order requiring Rule Violation Reports (RVRs) be expunged from his prison record, the issues were moot, and his appeal was dismissed; the inmate completed his punishment and fully litigated the issuance of the RVRs, and thus, there was no reasonable expectation that he could be subject to the same action RVR in the future. State v. Runnels, 281 So.3d 148, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

6. Service of process.

Inmate’s petition for review was governed by Miss. Unif. Cir. & Cty. R. 5.04 and not Miss. R. Civ. P. 4 because the petition for Administrative Remedy Program review was not a “regular civil filing” that required service of process under the rules of civil procedure; no service of process was required, and thus, the circuit court had personal jurisdiction over the Mississippi Department of Corrections to hear the inmate’s petition for review of his request for treatment. Jobe v. State, 288 So.3d 403, 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 612 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 426, Laws of 2002, eff from and after July 1, 2002 (approved March 20, 2002), amended this section. Section 4 of ch. 624, Laws of 2002, effective from and after July 1, 2002 (approved April 25, 2002), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 4 of ch. 624, Laws of 2002, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Editor’s Notes —

For the repeal date of this section, see §47-5-911.

Laws of 2004, ch. 537, § 8 provides:

“SECTION 8. The Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee shall conduct a study to determine the actual per day cost of housing state inmates in county jails. The PEER Committee shall complete such determination and shall report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House and Chairmen of the Senate and House Corrections Committees no later than December 1, 2004.”

Amendment Notes —

The first 2002 amendment (ch. 426) reenacted the section without change.

The second 2002 amendment (ch. 624) rewrote the last sentence in (2); and rewrote (3).

The 2003 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2004 amendment reenacted and amended the section by, in (3), rewriting the second sentence and adding the fourth sentence.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2007 amendment, which reenacted and amended the section, in (3), added (b) and (c), redesignated the former first paragraph as present (a), and deleted the former last sentence of (a), which read: “The Department of Corrections shall not pay a county for offenders housed in county jails pending a probation or parole revocation hearing.”

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2010 amendment, in (3)(a), rewrote the second sentence, which formerly read: “The department shall pay the cost for medical attention for prisoners at an amount no greater than the reimbursement rate based on the Mississippi Medicaid reimbursement rate,” and added the third and fourth sentences.

The 2012 amendment was reenacted without change.

The 2014 amendment, in (3)(b), deleted “out of any available funds,” following “the department shall pay”; and in (4), added “of this section” to the end.

The 2016 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Department of Corrections may create a postconviction DNA database see §47-5-183.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Certification as to whether there is space available within a Department of Corrections facility should be in writing on individual basis. Lucas, Oct. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0734.

If prisoner is sentenced by circuit judge to department of corrections and committed to county jail, then sheriff can not simply refuse to take prisoner because of overcrowding. Barrett, Jan. 12, 1994, A.G. Op. #93-0832.

The Mississippi Department of Corrections is under no obligation to pay counties for the costs associated with the care of inmates participating in a joint state/county work program under Section 47-5-401(1). Epps, Feb. 28, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0764.

The state’s responsibility for housing costs of prisoners commences the day the Department of Corrections receives a certified copy of the sentencing order regardless of when MDOC finishes the paperwork to induct an inmate into the system. Robinson, Mar. 4, 2005, A.G. Op. 04-0626.

Editor’s Notes —

For the repeal date of this section, see §47-5-911.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2003 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2004 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2007 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2016 amendment reenacted the section without change.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Mississippi Department of Corrections is under no obligation to pay counties for the costs associated with the care of inmates participating in a joint state/county work program under Section 47-5-401(1). Epps, Feb. 28, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0764.

Editor’s Notes —

For the repeal date of this section, see §47-5-911.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2003 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2004 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2007 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2016 amendment reenacted the section without change.

Cross References —

Person serving sentence in county jail to be classified in accordance with this section, see §§47-5-901,47-5-903.

Editor’s Notes —

For the repeal date of this section, see §47-5-911.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2003 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2004 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2007 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2016 amendment reenacted the section without change.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

If sheriff asks that inmate be removed from his or her jail, agency is authorized to start reimbursing county at that point. Lucas, Oct. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0734.

Editor’s Notes —

For the repeal date of this section, see §47-5-911.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2003 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2004 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2005 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2007 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2008 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted the section without change.

The 2016 amendment reenacted the section without change.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Notification to be given sheriff when space becomes available in Department of Corrections Facility for particular inmate is left to sound discretion of Commissioner of Department of Corrections. Lucas, Oct. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0734.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 354, Laws of 2007, effective upon passage (approved March 15, 2007), amended this section. Section 6 of ch. 603, Laws of 2007, effective upon passage (approved April 21, 2007), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 6 of ch. 603, Laws of 2007, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment, reenacted the section and extended the repealer date from “July 1, 2002” for “July 1, 2003.”

The 2003 amendment extended the repealer from “July 1, 2003” to “July 1, 2004” for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911.

The 2004 amendment extended the the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 from “July 1, 2004” to “July 1, 2005.”

The 2005 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 from “July 1, 2005” until “July 1, 2007.”

The first 2007 amendment (ch. 354), extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 from “July 1, 2007” until “July 1, 2008.”

The second 2007 amendment (ch. 603) extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 from “July 1, 2007” until “July 1, 2008.”

The 2008 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 by substituting “July 1, 2012” for “July 1, 2008.”

The 2012 amendment reenacted and amended the section by extending the repealer provision from “July 1, 2012” to “July 1, 2014.”

The 2014 amendment extended the repealer provision from “July 1, 2014” to “July 1, 2016.”

The 2016 amendment extended the date of the repealer for §§47-5-901 through47-5-911 by substituting “July 1, 2020” for “July 1, 2016.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment substituted “three hundred (300)” for “two hundred fifty (250)” in (1).

The 2007 amendment, in the first sentence of (1), deleted “jointly” following “regional facility” and substituted “one (1) or more counties” for “two (2) or three (3) counties”; in (2), deleted “and any contiguous county” following “Yazoo County” and added “(d) Washington County, (e) Hinds County, and (f) Alcorn County”; and added (3).

The 2013 amendment substituted “board of supervisors” for “boards of supervisors” in the first and second sentences in (2); and substituted “(75) additional offenders” for “(75) female offenders” in (3).

The 2014 amendment, in (1), deleted “not more than three hundred (300)” following “, to provide for housing, care and control of”; and in (3), deleted “number of” following “In addition to the.”

Cross References —

Department of Corrections may create a postconviction DNA database see §47-5-183.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment substituted “Twenty-nine Dollars and Seventy-four Cents ($29.74)” for “Twenty-four Dollars and Ninety Cents ($24.90).”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The sheriff has responsibility for management of a regional correctional facility and such a facility is exempt from the requirements of law otherwise applicable to a county; however, after the budget for the facility has been approved by the county board of supervisors, the sheriff cannot unilaterally increase the salary of the warden. Burgoon, Jr., Nov. 16, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0671.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The statute creates a position for counsel to last as long as the indebtedness incurred for construction of a facility and gives the sheriff discretionary authority to employ an attorney to fill that position on an at-will basis; however, this does not authorize a sheriff to bind his successors in office and a subsequent sheriff may exercise the same discretion and, therefore, any employment contract entered into by a prior sheriff under the statute is voidable by a subsequent sheriff. Ballard, Nov. 20, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0617.

The statute contemplates that an attorney hired pursuant to the statute will be a full-time rather than a part-time employee, and that he will be paid a certain salary. Ballard, Nov. 20, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0617.

The sheriff has responsibility for management of a regional correctional facility and such a facility is exempt from the requirements of law otherwise applicable to a county; however, after the budget for the facility has been approved by the county board of supervisors, the sheriff cannot unilaterally increase the salary of the warden. Burgoon, Jr., Nov. 16, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0671.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

A “court of competent jurisdiction” as referred to in Miss. Code Section 47-5-939 means a court within the Mississippi State Judicial System, and a Regional Correctional Facility is not allowed to contract with another State or with the United States for the housing of inmates. Weissinger, July 18, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0386.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 318, Laws of 2015, effective from and after passage (approved March 13, 2015), amended this section. Section 3 of ch. 463, Laws of 2015, effective from and after July 1, 2015 (approved April 20, 2015), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 3 of ch. 463, Laws of 2015, pursuant to Section 1-3-79, which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, the amendment with the latest effective date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section effective on an earlier date.

Section 1 of Chapter 318, Laws of 2018, effective from and after July 1, 2018 (approved March 7, 2018), amended this section. Section 1 of Chapter 409, Laws of 2018, effective from and after July 1, 2018 (approved March 21, 2018), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 1 of Chapter 409, Laws of 2018, pursuant to Section 1-3-79 which provides that whenever the same section of law is amended by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments are the same, the amendment with the latest approval date shall supersede all other amendments to the same section approved on an earlier date.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment extended the date of the repealer for the section from “January 1, 2008” until “July 3, 2009.”

The 2009 amendment extended the date of the repealer in (6) by substituting “July 3, 2010” for “July 3, 2009”; and made a minor stylistic change.

The 2012 amendment reenacted and amended the section by extending the repealer from “July 3, 2010” to “July 3, 2015” at the end of (6).

The first 2015 amendment (ch. 318), extended the repealer provision from “July 3, 2015” to “July 3, 2018” at the end of (6).

The second 2015 amendment (ch. 463), deleted “and regimented discipline strategies” from the end of (3)(b), and made related stylistic changes; and extended the repealer provision in (6), from “July 3, 2015” to “July 3, 2018.”

The first 2018 amendment (ch. 318) extended the date of the repealer for the section by substituting “July 1, 2019” for “July 3, 2018” in (6).

The second 2018 amendment (ch. 409) extended the date of the repealer for the section by substituting “July 3, 2022” for “July 3, 2018” in (6).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The board of alderman of the Town of Woodville may contract with Corrections Corporation of America to incarcerate Town of Woodville prisoners at the private facility in Wilkinson County. Wilkerson, January 16, 1998, #97-0790.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2004, ch. 537, § 8 provides:

“SECTION 8. The Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee shall conduct a study to determine the actual per day cost of housing state inmates in county jails. The PEER Committee shall complete such determination and shall report with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House and Chairmen of the Senate and House Corrections Committees no later than December 1, 2004.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment inserted “of” between “control” and “five,” added “the department also . . . department’s custody” at the end of the first sentence, and substituted “twenty (20) years” for “nineteen (19) years”.

The 2004 amendment, in the first sentence, substituted “may contract” for “shall contract” near the beginning of the section; substituted “not more than one thousand (1,000)” for “five hundred (500)” preceding “juvenile offenders,” and deleted “the department also may contract with such authority or governing authorities for the housing at the Walnut Grove facility of an additional two hundred fifty (250) juvenile offenders in the department’s custody” at the end; and rewrote the second sentence.

The 2005 amendment substituted “twenty-two (22) years” for “twenty-one (21) years” and “twenty-second birthday” for “twenty-first birthday” in the second sentence.

The 2007 amendment substituted “one thousand five hundred (1,500) juvenile offenders” for “one thousand (1,000) juvenile offenders.”

The 2012 amendment deleted “juvenile” preceding “offenders who are in the custody of” in the first sentence; deleted the former second sentence which read: “The maximum age of any offender housed in this facility shall be twenty-two (22) years of age, and upon reaching his or her twenty-second birthday, the offender must be removed from the facility speedily and within a reasonable amount of time”; substituted “offender for “juvenile” in the second sentence; and deleted “juvenile” preceding “offenders shall not be to this facility” in the third sentence.

Cross References —

Contract restrictions, see §47-5-945.

Continuing education leading to high school diploma or GED and vocational education to be provided juvenile offenders, see §47-5-949.

Provision of alcohol and drug counseling and treatment, see §47-5-951.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §47-5-947 provided for the implementation of the regimented inmate discipline program at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility.

Amendment Notes —

The 2014 amendment substituted “High School Equivalency Diploma” for “General Education Development (GED)” in the first and second sentences.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Even though this section does require that the Walnut Grove Correctional Authority must provide any juvenile offender incarcerated therein with continuing education and vocational education which leads to a high school diploma or General Education Development equivalent, no authority is given for it to act in the capacity of a school board. Webb, Dec. 5, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0498.