Marco Fashawn Bobo v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2005-CP-00387-COA
MARCO FASHAWN BOBO
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
1/28/2005
HON. ANDREW C. BAKER
PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
MARCO FASHAWN BOBO (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: W. GLENN WATTS
JOHN CHAMPION
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DISMISSED.
AFFIRMED - 11/01/2005
EN BANC.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
On May 26, 1998, in the Panola County Circuit Court, Marco Bobo pled guilty to the sale of
cocaine. Bobo was sentenced to ten years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC)
pursuant to the Regimented Inmate Discipline (RID) program. Bobo successfully completed the RID
program on April 15, 1999, and was placed on probation for the remainder of his sentence. On July 6,
2000, after notice and a hearing, Bobo’s probation was revoked for one year. Bobo had tested positive
for cocaine and marijuana on more than one occasion, had failed to report to his probation officer, had
failed to find suitable employment, and had failed to pay court assessments.
¶2.
On January 21, 2004, after notice and a hearing, the trial court revoked Bobo’s probation again
and ordered him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence. Bobo had again tested positive for
marijuana and was also charged with the crime of fleeing the scene of an accident. Subsequently, Bobo
filed a motion to clarify his sentence, which the trial court denied, finding that the motion should be
addressed as a petition for post-conviction relief. On December 16, 2004, Bobo submitted his motion for
post-conviction relief. After reviewing the pleadings and court files, the trial court denied Bobo’s motion
for post-conviction relief on January 28, 2005. Bobo now appeals to this Court asserting the following:
(1) he was entitled to a hearing on his motion; (2) the trial court improperly revoked his probation; and (3)
he is not responsible for the lack of communication between the sentencing court and the MDOC. Finding
no merit to Bobo’s issues, we affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶3.
The standard of review for a denial of a post-conviction motion is well-stated. The findings of the
trial court must be clearly erroneous in order to overturn a lower court's denial of a post-conviction relief
motion. McClinton v. State, 799 So. 2d 123, 126 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
DISCUSSION
¶4.
Although Bobo lists three issues in his appeal, his brief only discusses the second issue. As such
we will address only issue two, whether the trial court improperly revoked Bobo’s probation. Bobo argues
that he was no longer on probation since his discharge certificate from the RID program did not mention
any probation. In the original sentencing order of May 26, 1998, the trial court ordered Bobo to complete
the RID program, after which Bobo should “report to the probation officer of said County on the next
2
business day following his release and shall be on supervised probation for the remainder of the original
sentence or until the Court shall alter, extend, terminate or direct the execution of the above sentence.”
¶5.
Furthermore, at Bobo’s first revocation hearing on July 6, 2000, he was informed that he would
return to probation after his twelve-month revoked sentence. The trial court found “as a matter of law that
Bobo was still on probation and the Court could revoke this probation based on the violations presented.”
We find no error in the trial court’s finding; thus, we affirm.
¶6.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DENYING POSTCONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED
TO PANOLA COUNTY.
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., BRIDGES, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
