IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2015-CA-01907-SCT
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
v.
SANDY ROBERTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/28/2015
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY HINES
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT, JR.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: SANDY ROBERTS (PRO SE)
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 02/02/2017
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., KING AND BEAM, JJ.
BEAM, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) appeals from the Sunflower
County Circuit Court’s order mandating that Sandy Roberts, an inmate in the custody of
MDOC, be issued a parole case plan pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 47-7-3.1. See
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-31 (Rev. 2015). Finding that Roberts is not entitled to a parole case
plan, we reverse the circuit court’s order and render judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Roberts was convicted in 1978 of capital murder and two counts of armed robbery.
He was sentenced to life in prison for the capital-murder conviction and thirty years for each
armed robbery conviction. Roberts’s parole eligibility date was in 1997, and he has been
incarcerated since his commitment.
¶3. In June 2015, Roberts filed a “first-step” request with MDOC’s administrative remedy
program (ARP), asserting that he should be issued a parole case plan due to statutory
provisions passed in House Bill 585 (HB 585), which went into effect July 1, 2014. In
response, MDOC said that Roberts is ineligible to receive a parole case plan because he was
sentenced in 1978, and HB 585 did not go into effect until 2014 and is not retroactive.
¶4. Roberts proceeded to the ARP’s “second-step” process, in which he again requested
that he be given a parole case plan. MDOC denied his request on the same basis.
¶5. Roberts appealed MDOC’s decision to the Sunflower County Circuit Court. The
circuit court reversed MDOC’s decision and ordered MDOC to provide Roberts with a parole
case plan pursuant to Section 47-7-3.1. MDOC appeals that decision to this Court.
DISCUSSION
¶6. We addressed this exact issue in Fisher v. Drankus, 204 So. 3d 1232 (Miss. 2016),
which handed down on December 8, 2016. There, as here, MDOC denied inmate Michael
Drankus’s ARP request(s) that he be issued a parole case plan under newly enacted Section
47-7-3.1. Drankus appealed MDOC’s decision to the Sunflower County Circuit Court, which
reversed MDOC’s decision and ordered that Drankus be issued a case plan. MDOC appealed
to this Court.
¶7. We reversed the circuit court’s order and rendered judgment in favor of MDOC’s
decision. Construing certain provisions in HB 585, we found that MDOC’s interpretation
2
of Section 47-7-3.1 was reasonable and not inconsistent with statute’s language and
ascertainable legislative intent. We concluded that, “[b]ecause Section 47-7-3.1 does not
clearly and unequivocally express an intention for retroactive applicability, we cannot say
that Section 47-7-3.1 applies to Drankus.”
¶8. We find the same here.
CONCLUSION
¶9. For these reasons, we reverse the Sunflower County Circuit Court’s order requiring
that Roberts be issued a parole case plan under Section 47-7-3.1 and render judgment in
favor of MDOC’s ARP decision.
¶10. REVERSED AND RENDERED.
WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., KITCHENS, KING, COLEMAN,
MAXWELL AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ., CONCUR. DICKINSON, P.J., CONCURS IN
PART AND IN RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
3