Glen Tyrone Alexander v. State of MississippiAnnotate this Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
GLEN TYRONE ALEXANDER
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
HON. R.I. PRICHARD III
MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
GLEN TYRONE ALEXANDER (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LISA LYNN BLOUNT
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
AFFIRMED – 12/09/2008
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
This appeal arises out of the Marion County Circuit Court’s dismissal of Glen Tyrone
Alexander’s pro se motion for post-conviction relief (PCR). Aggrieved, Alexander appeals
and asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his PCR motion.1
Finding no error, we affirm.
Actually, Alexander filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus; however, the court
treated it as a motion for post-conviction relief. Further, Alexander raises five issues in his
motion; however, for the sake of clarity, we discuss them together, as they all concern
whether his probation was lawfully revoked.
On August 22, 2000, Alexander pleaded guilty to one count of sale of a Schedule II,
controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years with twelve years suspended and
five years of post-release supervision in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC). Alexander claims that, in April 2005, he was released from prison
and placed on earned-release supervision. On September 16, 2005, Alexander was tested
for illegal drugs, and on October 20, 2005, the results indicated that he had tested positive
for marijuana. Alexander completed his sentence and was discharged on January 3, 2006.
While on post-release supervision, on January 24, 2006, Alexander was arrested for
domestic assault. The following day, Lanny Arinder, field officer with the MDOC, executed
a warrant for Alexander’s arrest on the grounds that: (1) Alexander committed an offense
in violation of the laws of the State of Mississippi, (2) Alexander “failed to avoid injurious
and vicious habits,” and (3) Alexander possessed and consumed marijuana. Thereafter, a
hearing was held, and Alexander’s post-release supervision was revoked. On February 22,
2006, Alexander pleaded guilty to domestic assault and received a thirty-day suspended
sentence. Alexander was also ordered to pay a ninety-three dollar fine.
Additional facts, as necessary, will be related during our analysis and discussion of
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
Alexander argues that the trial judge improperly dismissed his PCR motion after his
post-release supervision was unlawfully revoked which resulted in his illegal incarceration.
“‘When reviewing a lower court’s decision to deny a petition for post-conviction relief [an
appellate court] will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are found to be
clearly erroneous. However, where questions of law are raised the applicable standard of
review is de novo.’” Pickett v. State, 751 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (¶8) (Miss. 1999) (quoting
Brown v. State, 731 So. 2d 595, 598 (¶6) (Miss. 1999) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of
First, Alexander contends that he was not allowed to offer witnesses or to present
evidence at a hearing that was held wherein his post-release supervision was revoked.
Alexander claims that he would have presented witnesses who would have testified that the
documents presented by Field Officer Arinder, regarding his arrest for domestic assault, were
false. Alexander claims that the court dismissed his domestic assault charge and argues that
Municipal Court Judge, Forest Dantin; the victim in the domestic assault case; and Michael
Stevens2 would have offered testimony to prove that the domestic assault charge was
Alexander did not provide the affidavits of any of these witnesses, nor did he offer
any explanation as to why he failed to do so, as required by Mississippi Code Annotated
section 99-39-9(1)(e) (Rev. 2007), which provides:
(1) A motion under this article shall name the [S]tate of Mississippi as
respondent and shall contain all of the following:
(e) A specific statement of the facts which are not within the prisoner’s
personal knowledge. The motion shall state how or by whom said facts will
be proven. Affidavits of the witnesses who will testify and copies of documents
or records that will be offered shall be attached to the motion. The affidavits
According to Alexander, Stevens is a captain with the Columbia Police Department.
of other persons and the copies of documents and records may be excused
upon a showing, which shall be specifically detailed in the motion, of good
cause why they cannot be obtained. This showing shall state what the prisoner
has done to attempt to obtain the affidavits, records and documents, the
production of which he requests the court to excuse.
(Emphasis added). The record simply does not support Alexander’s assertion that the
domestic assault charge was dismissed, in fact, the record reveals quite the contrary. The
record contains an “Order of Conviction Upon Guilty Plea” from the Marion County
Municipal Court, which indicates that Alexander waived his right to be represented by
counsel and entered a guilty plea.
Second, Alexander argues that the document offered during the hearing that shows
that he tested positive for marijuana is false. However, he offered nothing to support his
argument. The trial judge held that “the Court finds [Alexander’s] argument concerning
forged drug tests [sic] results to be without merit.” We cannot conclude that the trial judge’s
decision to deny Alexander’s request for post-conviction relief was clearly erroneous, as
there is nothing in the record to support Alexander’s contentions. There is no merit to this
¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARION COUNTY
DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MARION COUNTY.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES,
ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR. CARLTON, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.