Charles Griffis v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CP-00806-COA
CHARLES GRIFFIS
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
DATE OF TRIAL COURT 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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
04/24/2001
HON. GRAY EVANS
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CHARLES GRIFFIS (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
FRANK CARLTON
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PETITION DENIED
AFFIRMED - 03/05/2002
3/26/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., THOMAS, AND MYERS, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Charles Griffis, pro se, appeals an order of the Circuit Court of Sunflower County denying his petition
for post-conviction relief regarding the revocation of his house arrest. Aggrieved, he asserts the following
issue:
I. WHETHER GRIFFIS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REVOKED HIS HOUSE ARREST
WITHOUT A DISCIPLINARY HEARING BEING CONDUCTED ON THE RULE
VIOLATION REPORT HE WAS ISSUED FOR AN ALLEGED RULE VIOLATION.
¶2. We hold that Griffis was not denied due process of law and that the circuit court's decision is affirmed.
FACTS
¶3. On May 5, 1998, Griffis was convicted in Chickasaw County, Mississippi of possession of a controlled
substance with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to a term of ten years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC) which was to be suspended following the completion of one year in
the Intensive Supervision Program, also known as house arrest. Following the completion of the house
arrest, Griffis was to serve five years of supervised probation. On June 13, 1998, Griffis was issued a Rule
Violation Report by a MDOC field officer for allegedly leaving his residence without permission, and a
warrant was issued for his arrest.
¶4. Judge Kenneth Coleman, Chickasaw County Circuit Court, issued an order on June 16, 1998,
approving MDOC's placement of Griffis "in whatever facility deemed appropriate and the Defendant is to
complete the original sentence of the court." Griffis was transported to the Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman on June 16, 1998. He was initially classified on July 2, 1998, and because of a disability was
placed in a special needs unit.
¶5. In April 2000, Griffis submitted a grievance through the administrative remedy program at Parchman,
complaining of being denied his due process rights. Griffis was denied remedy because more than thirty
days had passed between the revocation of his house arrest and his request for relief. Griffis did not
complete the final steps required for judicial review in the administrative remedy program defined by
Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-807 (Rev. 1999). On November 22, 2000, Griffis filed a
complaint in the Sunflower County Circuit Court claiming that his house arrest had been revoked without
justification and without a hearing by the MDOC disciplinary committee.
¶6. The Sunflower County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint finding that Griffis "had violated the terms
of the House Arrest Program and was properly arrested by his field officer and placed in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections to complete his original sentence." After receiving a letter sent to the
Sunflower County Circuit Clerk from Griffis, which the court treated as a motion to reconsider, the court
entered an order to expand the record and required MDOC to furnish information concerning Griffis'
removal from house arrest. After viewing MDOC's report, the court concluded that MDOC had acted
properly and issued its final judgment dismissing Griffis' complaint. It is from this judgment that Griffis
appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER GRIFFIS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS REVOKED HIS HOUSE ARREST
WITHOUT A DISCIPLINARY HEARING BEING CONDUCTED ON THE RULE
VIOLATION REPORT HE WAS ISSUED FOR AN ALLEGED RULE VIOLATION.
¶7. Griffis asserts that when he was removed from house arrest MDOC failed to follow the requirements
set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-5-1003(3) (Rev. 1999) and consequently he was
denied due process of law. The State argues that Griffis' request was untimely, since it was tendered over
thirty days after the incident. The State also argues that Griffis had no liberty interest in remaining in house
arrest and was therefore not entitled to due process protections and that MDOC did not violate the
requirements of section 47-5-1003(3) when removing Griffis from house arrest.
¶8. Griffis was issued a rules violation report on June 13, 1998, and he was assigned to a special needs unit
on July 2, 1998. According to MDOC administrative review procedures adopted pursuant to Mississippi
Code Annotated section 47-5-801 (Rev. 1999), a grievance must be filed within thirty days of an alleged
incident. Griffis did not file his complaint until almost two years after he was removed from house arrest. The
agency therefore properly dismissed the grievance as untimely. If Griffis would have taken the steps
necessary to reach a final agency decision, he would have had thirty days to seek judicial review of that
decision under section 47-5-801. The review would have been of the agency's decision to dismiss the
grievance as untimely, not of the merits of the grievance itself. "The decision of an administrative agency
shall not be disturbed unless unsupported by substantial evidence; arbitrary or capricious; beyond the
agency's scope or powers; or violative of the constitutional or statutory rights of the aggrieved party." Miss.
State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy v. Gray, 674 So. 2d 1251, 1253 (Miss. 1996). MDOC's decision to
reject a request for administrative remedy filed nearly two years after the alleged incident was not arbitrary
and capricious when MDOC procedures require such a request to be filed within thirty days.
¶9. Even if Griffis was not untimely in his complaint, Griffis had no due process rights regarding his removal
from house arrest. When Griffis' house arrest was revoked and he was placed in the actual custody of
MDOC, he underwent a change of classification and housing assignment. Lewis v. State, 761 So. 2d 922,
923 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Inmates have neither a property nor liberty interest in any particular
housing assignment or custodial classification under the United States Constitution or Mississippi law.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 474, 480 (1995);Carson v. Hargett, 689 So. 2d 753, 755 (Miss. 1996).
Without a liberty interest at stake in Griffis' removal from house arrest, he was not entitled to due process
protections.
¶10. MDOC did not violate the requirements set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-51003(3), which reads as follows:
To protect and to ensure the safety of the state's citizens, any offender who violates an order or
condition of the intensive supervision program shall be arrested by the correctional field officer and
placed in the actual custody of the Department of Corrections. Such an offender is under the full and
complete jurisdiction of the department and subject to the removal from the program by the
classification hearing officer.
Griffis was found to have left his residence in violation of his house arrest. A rules violation report was
issued by his field officer and Griffis arrested pursuant to it. On July 2, 1998, the classification committee
met and reassigned Griffis to the special needs unit. MDOC's actions therefore fell within the requirements
of section 47-5-1003(3). We find no error in the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.
¶11. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SUNFLOWER COUNTY
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO SUNFLOWER COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
