C. D. Pickle, Jr. v. Mississippi Parole Board
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CP-00839-COA
C. D. PICKLE, JR.
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI STATE PAROLE BOARD
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
4/30/2002
HON. RICHARD A. SMITH
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
C. D. PICKLE, JR. (PRO SE)
JAMES M. NORRIS
JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
AFFIRMED - 07/15/03
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
MCMILLIN, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
C. D. Pickle, Jr., a prisoner in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, has
appealed to this Court from an order of the Circuit Court of Sunflower County denying his petition for writ
of mandamus to compel the Mississippi State Parole Board (hereafter “the Board”) to conduct annual
reviews of his eligibility for parole. Finding no error in the circuit court’s ruling, we affirm.
¶2.
According to Pickle’s pleadings, he was considered for parole by the Board and denied release
in April 2001. Pickle offers no dispute as to this aspect of the Board’s decision; however, the Board’s
ruling also apparently contained a provision that no further review of Pickle’s eligibility would be undertaken
for a period of five years.
¶3.
Pickle contends that this portion of the Board’s decision violates the mandates of an amendment
to Section 47-7-5 of the Mississippi Code adopted in 2000 that reads as follows:
The State Parole Board, immediately after the effective date of this act, shall
review all cases where an offender was denied parole and any eligibility for reconsideration
for parole for at least one (1) year after denial.
Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-5(7) (Rev. 2000) (repealed July 1, 2002).
¶4.
Pickle argues that this provision requires that every potentially eligible inmate receive
reconsideration for parole on an annual basis. The Parole Board, on the other hand, contends that this
subsection required only a one-time action by the Board. Additionally, the Board points out that Section
47-7-5 was further amended in 2002 and that the language quoted above was removed.
It is a well recognized principle of law in this State that ambiguity must exist in the
language used by the Legislature in a statute before resort will be had to any rules of
statutory construction or interpretation. Without ambiguity, the controlling law of this
State requires that the Court look no further than the clear language of the statute
and apply it.
Forman v. Carter, 269 So. 2d 865, 868 (Miss. 1972) (emphasis supplied).
¶5.
It is the view of this Court that a plain reading of the passage in question indicates that the
Legislature intended to mandate a one-time review in the year 2000 of all inmates then falling within the
class of offenders defined in the subsection. Had the Legislature intended to institute an on-going
requirement that, henceforth, all potentially-eligible inmates would receive at least an annual formal
evaluation of eligibility, we are satisfied that it would have said so in clear terms. We decline to undertake
the strained reading of this passage that would be required to obtain from it the meaning Pickle contends
is there.
2
¶6.
In his appeal for the first time, Pickle also contends that, if the law is interpreted as permitting the
Board such virtually unlimited discretion in deciding when to undertake formal consideration of an inmate’s
parole eligibility, the laws creating the Board are unconstitutional for having vested too much unchecked
discretion in the Board. Matters not presented to the trial court for decision may not be raised for the first
time on appeal. Pierce v. State, 811 So. 2d 395, 396 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). We find this
contention to be procedurally barred.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, 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.
