Monroe Randle v. Mississippi Parole Board
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CP-00576-COA MONROE RANDLE APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI PAROLE BOARD DATE OF 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: MANDATE ISSUED: APPELLEE 03/15/2013 HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT MONROE RANDLE (PRO SE) ANTHONY LOUIS SCHMIDT JR. JAMES M. NORRIS R. STEWART SMITH JR. CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DENIED PETITION FOR POSTCONVICTION RELIEF APPEAL DISMISSED: 10/15/2013 BEFORE LEE, C.J., MAXWELL AND FAIR, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Randle was convicted of murder in 1980 in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Mississippi, and received a life sentence. In February of 2010 he was granted parole by the Mississippi Parole Board, which revoked his parole in July of 2012, when he was arrested for simple assault by threat and firearm possession. ¶2. Randle asserted the Board s revocation of his parole was unlawful and filed a petition for habeas corpus relief seeking that the revocation be set aside. His petition was properly treated as a post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) petition by the Rankin County Circuit Court, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. He has appealed that dismissal to this Court. ¶3. We concur with the trial court s finding that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Randle s PCR claims. [A] PCR motion is properly filed in the county where the prisoner was convicted, not where the prisoner is incarcerated. Nelson v. Bingham, 116 So. 3d 172, 174 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Therefore, we affirm the trial court s dismissal for the reasons discussed in detail in Nelson. ¶4. THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSED TO RANKIN COUNTY. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS, CARLTON, MAXWELL AND JAMES, JJ., CONCUR. 2
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.
