Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Mississippi opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2022However, the “mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Brown v. State, 864 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (¶9) (Miss. 2022Assuming the person on PRS does not waive the hearing, the court may revoke a person’s PRS and impose any or all of the sentence if the court “finds by a preponderance of the evidence, that . . . [the] person under post-release supervision has committed a felony or absconded.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-37.1 . “[T]he mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Elkins v. State, 116 So. 3d 185, 188 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Brown v. State, 864 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). “[W]hen alleged criminal activity is the basis for revocation, the State ‘must sh | 7 | 8 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2015While, we do not require a conviction to substantiate revocation of parole, the “[m]ere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Brown v. State, 864 So.2d 1058, 1060 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Moore v. State, 587 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 7. 2015While we do not require a conviction to substantiate revocation of parole, the “[m]ere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Brown v. State, 864 So.2d 1058, 1060 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (citing Moore v. State, 587 So.2d 1193, 1194 (Miss.1991)). ¶ 6. | 6 | 6 |
Elkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Assuming the person on PRS does not waive the hearing, the court may revoke a person’s PRS and impose any or all of the sentence if the court “finds by a preponderance of the evidence, that . . . [the] person under post-release supervision has committed a felony or absconded.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-37.1 . “[T]he mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Elkins v. State, 116 So. 3d 185, 188 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Brown v. State, 864 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). “[W]hen alleged criminal activity is the basis for revocation, the State ‘must sh 2020In support, he relies on our general rule that “the mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Elkins v. State, 116 So. 3d 185, 188 (¶12) (Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Billie Salvador Braziel v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2018Braziel , 186 So.3d at 427 (¶ 13) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Don R. Lewis a/k/a Don Lewis a/k/a Don Russell Lewis v. State of Mississippi;
green
2 sentences2026Rather, “[w]hen alleged criminal activity is the basis for revocation, the State must show proof of an actual conviction, or that a crime has been committed and that it is more likely than not that the probationer committed the offense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lewis v. State, 291 So. 3d 398 , 400 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)).5 ¶11. 2022Assuming the person on PRS does not waive the hearing, the court may revoke a person’s PRS and impose any or all of the sentence if the court “finds by a preponderance of the evidence, that . . . [the] person under post-release supervision has committed a felony or absconded.” Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-37.1 . “[T]he mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Elkins v. State, 116 So. 3d 185, 188 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Brown v. State, 864 So. 2d 1058, 1060 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)). “[W]hen alleged criminal activity is the basis for revocation, the State ‘must sh | 2 | 2022–2026 |
Alfred Williams v. State of Mississippi
green
2 sentences2026Rather, “[w]hen alleged criminal activity is the basis for revocation, the State must show proof of an actual conviction, or that a crime has been committed and that it is more likely than not that the probationer committed the offense.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lewis v. State, 291 So. 3d 398 , 400 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)).5 ¶11. 2026We acknowledge that “[t]he mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Williams v. State, 334 So. 3d 177 , 181 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Roosevelt Reshard Williams a/k/a Roosevelt Rishard Williams a/k/a Rooselvelt R. Williams a/k/a Roosevelt Williams v. State of Mississippi;
green
1 sentence2021Although he denied fondling a minor and claimed he did not attempt to escape the custody of a sheriff’s department, he was indicted on the fondling charge and had an affidavit issued against him on the escape charge.3 3 We note that “the mere arrest of a probationer is not a violation of probation.” Williams v. State, 298 So. 3d 416 , 418 (¶12) (Miss. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.