Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (2026)
Determination of eligibility for compensation; award of compensation
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) In order to obtain a judgment under this chapter, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
- (a) He was convicted of one or more felonies and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence; and
- (i) He has been pardoned for the felony or felonies for which he was sentenced and which are the grounds for the complaint and the pardon is based on the innocence of the claimant which must be affirmatively stated in the pardon; or
- (ii) His judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated; and
- 1. The accusatory instrument was dismissed or nol prossed; or
- 2. If a new trial was ordered, he was found not guilty at the new trial; and
- (b) He did not commit the felony or felonies for which he was sentenced and which are the grounds for the complaint, or the acts or omissions for which he was sentenced did not constitute a felony; and
- (c) He did not commit or suborn perjury, or fabricate evidence to bring about his conviction.
- (a) He was convicted of one or more felonies and subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence; and
- (2) If the court finds that the claimant was wrongfully convicted and incarcerated pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the court shall award:
- (a) Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each year of incarceration regardless of the number of felonies for which a claimant was convicted, but the total amount for each claimant shall not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00). There shall be no compensation for any preindictment detention. This award shall be paid to the claimant in installments of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) per year until the award is fully paid. The state may purchase an annuity to satisfy this obligation.
- (b) Reasonable attorney's fees for bringing a claim under this chapter calculated at ten percent (10%) of the amount awarded under paragraph (a) of this subsection for preparing and filing the claim, twenty percent (20%) for litigating the claim if it is contested by the Attorney General, and twenty-five percent (25%) if the claim is appealed, plus expenses. These fees shall not be deducted from the compensation due the claimant, nor is counsel entitled to receive additional fees from the client for a claim under this section.
- (3) The award shall not be subject to:
- (a) Any cap applicable to private parties in civil lawsuits;
- (b) Any taxes, except that those portions of the judgment awarded as attorney's fees for bringing a claim under this chapter shall be taxable as income to the attorney; or
- (c) Treatment as gross income to a claimant under the provisions of Title 27, Chapter 7, Mississippi Code of 1972.
- (4) A claimant may choose to pursue a claim under this chapter in lieu of pursuing a claim against the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision thereof under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Section 11-46-1 et seq., Mississippi Code of 1972. Any claimant who obtains an award under this chapter may not obtain an award by reason of the same subject against the State of Mississippi or a political subdivision thereof under the provisions of the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, Section 11-46-1 et seq., Mississippi Code of 1972.
- (5) The immunity of the State of Mississippi and any political subdivision thereof is hereby waived with respect to the claims described in this chapter and within the limits prescribed by this chapter.
Laws, 2009, ch. 472, § 4, eff. 7/1/2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2022 · leading case: Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 629 (Miss. 2018).
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 629 (Miss. 2018). “These fees shall not be deducted from the compensation due the claimant, nor is counsel entitled to receive additional fees from the client for a claim under this section.”
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 133 (Miss. 2016). “Whether the trial court erred by holding Hall’s complaint and amended complaint to the heightened requirements of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-7 before analyzing whether Hall *136 met the requirement of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-3.”
Tyler Edmonds v. State of Mississippi, 234 So. 3d 286 (Miss. 2017). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1)(c). ¶9. The crux of Edmonds’s position is that the circuit court erred in finding that his false confession prohibits him from recovery pursuant to Section 11-44-7(1)(c).”
Moore v. State, 203 So. 3d 775 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “A related provision, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-44-7 (Rev. 2012), provides in relevant part that in order to obtain a judgment and compensation for a wrongful conviction: (1) .”
Aundray Isaac v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 1009 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1). For the civil action, Isaac carried the burden of proof, and the trial court determined that he failed to meet his burden.”
Hymes v. State, 121 So. 3d 938 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “Hymes contends that section 11-44-7(1) is unconstitutional because the statute shifts the burden to the accused to prove his innocence and violates the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
Tipton v. State, 150 So. 3d 82 (Miss. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (Rev. 2012). Tipton clearly has satisfied all of the requirements of compensation with one possible exception: whether he was sentenced “to a period of imprisonment” while under house arrest.”
Jefferson v. State, 95 So. 3d 709 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “If a claimant meets this burden, he or she is entitled to “Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each year of incarceration regardless of the number of felonies for which a claimant was convicted” and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (2) (Supp. 2011).”
Patrick Higgins v. State of Mississippi, 202 So. 3d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Within that motion, Higgins claimed that his innocence had been conclusively established by this Court’s reversal and rendering of his conviction and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, thereby satisfying Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-44-7 (Rev.2012).…”
Sedric Q. Sutton a/k/a Sedric Sutton a/k/a Cedric Quintorus Sutton v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2022). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1) (Rev. 2019).”
Felton Martin, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 221 So. 3d 374 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1) (Rev. 2012).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(1) — 8 cases
Hymes v. State, 121 So. 3d 938 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). “Hymes contends that section 11-44-7(1) is unconstitutional because the statute shifts the burden to the accused to prove his innocence and violates the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
Aundray Isaac v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 1009 (Miss. 2016). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1). For the civil action, Isaac carried the burden of proof, and the trial court determined that he failed to meet his burden.”
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 133 (Miss. 2016). “Whether the trial court erred by holding Hall’s complaint and amended complaint to the heightened requirements of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-7 before analyzing whether Hall *136 met the requirement of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-3.”
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (2) (Supp. 2011).”
Patrick Higgins v. State of Mississippi, 202 So. 3d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Within that motion, Higgins claimed that his innocence had been conclusively established by this Court’s reversal and rendering of his conviction and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, thereby satisfying Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-44-7 (Rev.2012).…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(1)(b) — 1 case
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2016). “Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (2) (Supp. 2011).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(1)(c) — 1 case
Tyler Edmonds v. State of Mississippi, 234 So. 3d 286 (Miss. 2017). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1)(c). ¶9. The crux of Edmonds’s position is that the circuit court erred in finding that his false confession prohibits him from recovery pursuant to Section 11-44-7(1)(c).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(2) — 2 cases
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 187 So. 3d 133 (Miss. 2016). “Whether the trial court erred by holding Hall’s complaint and amended complaint to the heightened requirements of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-7 before analyzing whether Hall *136 met the requirement of Mississippi Code Section 11-44-3.”
Jefferson v. State, 95 So. 3d 709 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “If a claimant meets this burden, he or she is entitled to “Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for each year of incarceration regardless of the number of felonies for which a claimant was convicted” and reasonable attorney’s fees.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(2)(a) — 1 case
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 629 (Miss. 2018). “These fees shall not be deducted from the compensation due the claimant, nor is counsel entitled to receive additional fees from the client for a claim under this section.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(2)(b) — 1 case
Jason Hall v. State of Mississippi, 241 So. 3d 629 (Miss. 2018). “These fees shall not be deducted from the compensation due the claimant, nor is counsel entitled to receive additional fees from the client for a claim under this section.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(4) — 1 case
Tyler Edmonds v. State of Mississippi, 234 So. 3d 286 (Miss. 2017). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1)(c). ¶9. The crux of Edmonds’s position is that the circuit court erred in finding that his false confession prohibits him from recovery pursuant to Section 11-44-7(1)(c).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(l)(b) — 2 cases
Moore v. State, 203 So. 3d 775 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “A related provision, Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-44-7 (Rev. 2012), provides in relevant part that in order to obtain a judgment and compensation for a wrongful conviction: (1) .”
Patrick Higgins v. State of Mississippi, 202 So. 3d 1274 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). “Within that motion, Higgins claimed that his innocence had been conclusively established by this Court’s reversal and rendering of his conviction and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied, thereby satisfying Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-44-7 (Rev.2012).…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7(l)(c) — 1 case
Tyler Edmonds v. State of Mississippi, 234 So. 3d 286 (Miss. 2017). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-7 (1)(c). ¶9. The crux of Edmonds’s position is that the circuit court erred in finding that his false confession prohibits him from recovery pursuant to Section 11-44-7(1)(c).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.