Leroy Campbell v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2006-CP-02090-COA
LEROY CAMPBELL
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
10/23/2006
HON. ROGER T. CLARK
HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LEROY CAMPBELL (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS
CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
DENIED PRO SE MOTION: AMENDED NUNC
PRO TUNC
DISMISSED: 02/26/2008
BEFORE KING, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Leroy Campbell appeals the Harrison County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion titled
“Nunc Pro Tunc.” The motion requested the trial court correct the computation of his credit for time
served prior to sentencing. This Court finds that, since Campbell has completed his sentence, this
issue is moot.
FACTS
¶2.
On November 5, 2004, Campbell was arrested and charged with embezzlement. He posted
bond on November 23, 2004, and left Mississippi traveling to Louisiana. He was indicted for the
crime of embezzlement by a Harrison County grand jury on April 11, 2005. On August 15, 2005,
an arrest warrant was issued for Campbell.
¶3.
He was arrested by police in Louisiana on October 17, 2005. The following day he signed
a waiver of extradition freely volunteering to return to Mississippi to respond to the criminal charges.
For some reason that is not apparent from the record, Campbell was not extradited from Louisiana
until November 17, 2005.
¶4.
Upon extradition, Campbell pleaded guilty to embezzlement and was sentenced to serve two
years, day-for-day, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). In
addition, the trial court granted Campbell credit for time served. Campbell was placed in the custody
of MDOC immediately after sentencing.
¶5.
On August 16, 2006, Campbell filed a motion titled “Nunc Pro Tunc” that claimed he was
given the incorrect amount of credit for time served. The trial court denied the motion finding that
the sentencing order did grant him credit for time served. On October 23, 2006, Campbell filed a
motion titled “Amended Nunc Pro Tunc Motion.” It stated that while the trial court did provide
credit for time served, the amount was calculated incorrectly because it failed to include the time he
had spent in custody in Louisiana awaiting extradition to Mississippi after he had waived extradition.
The trial court once again denied the relief sought, and Campbell instituted this appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶6.
While Campbell never specifically requested post-conviction relief, the essence of his motion
states that he is serving an illegal sentence. He specifically argues that MDOC wrongly denied him
credit for time served while awaiting extradition from Louisiana. The appellate courts have
previously addressed such claims. Holland v. State, 418 So. 2d 73, 74 (Miss. 1982); Taylor v. State,
2
726 So. 2d 227, 227-28 (¶¶3-8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). However, more recently this Court has stated
that computation of credit for time served is left to MDOC, and that the proper redress is first
through MDOC’s administrative system. Melton v. State, 930 So. 2d 452, 455-56 (¶¶13-14) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2006); Thomas v. State, 910 So. 2d 1147, 1152 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
¶7.
Rather than determine whether this matter falls under the post-conviction relief statutes or
administrative remedies, we note that on September 30, 2007, Campbell was released from the
custody of MDOC, having served his two-year sentence. Since Campbell has completed his
sentence and is no longer in custody for this crime, the issue has become moot and this appeal is
dismissed. Rankins v. State, 937 So. 2d 45, 45 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).
¶8.
THE APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT IS DISMISSED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO HARRISON
COUNTY.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE,
ROBERTS AND CARLTON, 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.
