18 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1997See People v. Ramos , State v. Rollins, Clark v. Tansy, Johnson v. State, and McKee v. State, n. 3, supra. As we stated in Williams, "allowing argument or testimony regarding the possibility of the defendant some day being paroled is in effect inviting the jury to speculate how ten years in the future ... the parole board may exercise its legislatively granted authority." Williams, 445 So.2d at 813 . 1995See People v. Ramos, State v. Rollins, Clark v. Tansy, People v. Johnson, and McKee v. State, n. 3, supra. As we stated in Williams, "allowing argument or testimony regarding the possibility of the defendant some day being paroled is in effect inviting the jury to speculate how ten years in the future . . . the parole board may exercise its legislatively granted authority." Williams, 445 So. 2d at 813 . | 2 | 2 |
George Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Boardgreen2 sentences2003The judge then concluded that "[this Court] lacks jurisdiction over this matter." In his initial order, he stated "that each petitioner who is eligible for parole has received a parole hearing" and that "[a]t each parole hearing, the parole board properly considered the criteria found in Section 47-7-47 [4] [sic] of the Mississippi Code in making a determination to deny parole." He correctly cited Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 831 F.2d 565 (5th Cir.1987) (in Mississippi, the absolute discretion conferred on the Parole Board affords a prisoner no constitutionally recognized liberty 2002The judge then concluded that “[this Court] lacks jurisdiction over this matter.” In his initial order, he stated “that each petitioner who is eligible for parole has received a parole hearing” and that “[a]t each parole hearing, the parole board 8 properly considered the criteria found in Section 47-7-474 [sic] of the Mississippi Code in making a determination to deny parole.” He correctly cited Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 831 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1987) (in Mississippi, the absolute discretion conferred on the Parole Board affords a prisoner no constitutionally recognized liberty | 1 | 3 |
Boyce Willard v. Mississippi State Parole Boardgreen1 sentence2017In the recent and similar case of Willard v. Mississippi State Parole Board, 212 So.3d 80, 83-84 (¶¶ 6, 14) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2014Lott filed a PCR motion in the Greene County Circuit Court on October 15, 2012, alleging that he had been denied a parole hearing and other rights set out in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). 2014Lott filed a PCR motion in the Greene County Circuit Court on October 15, 2012, alleging that he had been denied a parole hearing and other rights set out in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). | 5 | 1991–2014 |
Vickery v. State
green
2 sentences2002He does argue that the memories of two of the witnesses were not sharp due to the long delay and cites Vickery v. State, 535 So.2d 1371 (Miss.1988), in support of his argument. 2000He does argue that the memories of two of the witnesses were not sharp due to the long delay and cites Vickery v. State, 535 So. 2d 1371 (Miss. 1988), in support of his argument. | 2 | 2000–2002 |
Alexander v. State
green
2 sentences2001Backstrom entered the judgment on finding that (1) the court had "no proof before it that the parole of the plaintiff (Edmond) was unlawfully revoked," (2) that Edmond admitted a parole violation, and (3) pursuant to the Post Conviction Collateral Relief Act and Alexander v. State, 667 So.2d 1 (Miss.1995), "all that has to be shown in a proper revocation proceeding is that the parolee violated the terms of his parole." Edmond's petition for habeas corpus relief was denied without an evidentiary hearing. 1999Backstrom entered the judgment on finding that (1) the court had "no proof before it that the parole of the plaintiff (Edmond) was unlawfully revoked," (2) that Edmond admitted a parole violation, and (3) pursuant to the Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act and Alexander v. State, 667 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 1995), "all that has to be shown in a proper revocation proceeding is that the parolee violated the terms of his parole." Edmond's petition for habeas corpus relief was denied without an evidentiary hearing. | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Riely v. State
green
2 sentences1999This Court noted in Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss.1990) that both the preliminary and final parole revocation hearings must give the parolee the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf. 1996This Court noted in Riely v. State, 562 So.2d 1206 (Miss. 1990) that both the preliminary and final parole revocation hearings must give the parolee the opportunity to present witnesses on his behalf. | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Edmond v. Hancock
green
1 sentence2018Edmond v. Hancock , 830 So.2d 658 , 660 (¶ 5) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Weeks v. United States
red
2 sentences1990Bevill contends he was sent to Parchman on a parole violation which resulted from information obtained following an illegal arrest and not having received the Miranda warning, and consequently the statements made to Clark were "fruit of the poisoned tree." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920); Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). 1990Bevill contends he was sent to Parchman on a parole violation which resulted from information obtained following an illegal arrest and not having received the Miranda warning, and consequently the statements made to Clark were "fruit of the poisoned tree." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920); Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Bevill contends he was sent to Parchman on a parole violation which resulted from information obtained following an illegal arrest and not having received the Miranda warning, and consequently the statements made to Clark were "fruit of the poisoned tree." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920); Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). 1990Bevill contends he was sent to Parchman on a parole violation which resulted from information obtained following an illegal arrest and not having received the Miranda warning, and consequently the statements made to Clark were "fruit of the poisoned tree." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 , 40 S.Ct. 182 , 64 L.Ed. 319 , 24 A.L.R. 1426 (1920); Weeks v. U.S., 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.