Sykes v. Grantham

Decision Date08 August 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-CA-0003,89-CA-0003
Citation567 So.2d 200
PartiesOllie SYKES, James R. Figgs and Paul Carter v. Linda GRANTHAM and The Travelers Insurance Company.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Robert L. Gibbs, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen. Jackson, for appellants.

Alvin Binder, Lisa B. Milner, Binder Milner & Milner, Gary K. Jones, Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, Jackson, for appellees.

En Banc.

ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, for the Court:

This case appears before the Court for the second time. On the first trial in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, the Honorable William F. Coleman dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and an appeal was taken here. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed as to the Parole Board, Department of Corrections and Commissioner of Corrections. The judgment was reversed and remanded for trial as to the individual Parole Board Members. Grantham v. Dept. of Corrections, 522 So.2d 219 (Miss.1988).

After a second trial, the jury returned a verdict for Grantham in the sum of $2,500,000.00 actual damages and $500,000.00 punitive damages, and judgment was entered for those amounts. The Parole Board members have appealed to this Court. We consider one (1) issue and reverse and render the judgment of the lower court.

HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

FACTS

Pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 47-7-5 (1984 Supp.), Ch. 471, Laws, 1984), in July, 1984, the following were appointed to the State Parole Board:

1. James Russell Figgs of Marks, a paralegal, formerly employed with the Mississippi Rural Legal Services.

2. Ollie Vivian Sykes of Meridian, media coordinator for the Meridian Public School Systems.

3. Paul Carter of Vancleave, assistant director of personnel and employee relations for the Singing River Hospital System of Jackson County.

4. B.C. Ruth of Ruleville, chairman, and long-time employee at the state penitentiary in Parchman, employed as Director of Records for the Parole Board.

5. Jo Ann Kaelin of Gloster.

Under the Act only the chairman was a full-time employee; the others were only paid a per diem and necessary expenses while attending board meetings. The board met three-to-four days each month.

On Tuesday, December 18, 1984, in a meeting which began at 8:00 a.m. and concluded at 5:30 p.m., the board considered parole for sixty-three convicts, among whom was Clem V. Jimpson. Fifteen applicants, including Jimpson, were granted parole.

None of the board members, other than Ruth, had any knowledge of Jimpson prior to this day.

Ruth began working at Parchman on August 18, 1948, and worked there for a few years. Thereafter in 1960 he returned to Parchman as the records officer, where he remained until he became chairman of the Parole Board in July of 1984. He retired in July of 1988. Ruth's prior knowledge of Jimpson was limited to Jimpson's record.

Ruth testified that he had to leave the Board meeting for "some reason", but did not recall whether Jimpson was present when he left, and also that prior to leaving the room, he told the other three Board members that he could not go along with paroling Jimpson. He gave no reason for his opinion. When Ruth returned to the meeting 10 to 20 minutes later, Jimpson was present and the decision had been made to grant his parole.

Ruth stated that although it was not unusual for him not to go along with a decision of the other members to grant parole, he thought that the other Board members heard his comment concerning Jimpson's parole. He added, "At one point in time, Mr. Figgs in a conversation did say that he heard me say that." However, Figgs did not acknowledge the comment at the time it was made. Figgs and Carter in their testimony did not recall Ruth's expressing opposition to the parole of Jimpson, but testified he had for some reason or another left the room when Jimpson's parole was considered.

Ruth admitted on cross-examination that he probably would have voted for Jimpson's parole had he not been privy to Jimpson's past record at Parchman as the records director. While administrative assistant Ruth signed a form denying Jimpson's parole on March 2, 1984. The form indicated that it was not in the best interest of society to parole Jimpson.

Ruth gave Carter the chairman's parole file prior to leaving the room. He added that Figgs looked at the master file for several minutes, while he and the other two members talked with at least two other prisoners.

Ruth stated that it was the duty of the Records Department at the Department of Corrections to forward the community acceptance forms to the proper judges and In any event, Ruth's views as to Jimpson were neither considered nor sought by the remaining board members.

district attorneys. He acknowledged that the Department of Corrections and the Mississippi Parole Board were separate entities.

The board had available to it for study the entire prison records of each applicant, which frequently, as in Jimpson's case, consisted of a thick, voluminous file. There was also prepared by the staff of the department of corrections on each parole applicant a "chairman's file," consisting of copies of what was considered pertinent information:

(1) letters from sponsoring groups;

(2) Early Release Risk Evaluation or matrix evaluation; 1

(3) copies of rule violations reports (RVRs); and

(4) community attitude reports.

Because Ruth was not in the room when Jimpson's parole was considered, Carter, as acting chairman, reviewed the chairman's file.

Some applicants were personally interviewed by the board. While the board was conducting the interview of one applicant, one of its members would review the complete prison file of the applicant to follow. Thus, Figgs, as Sykes put it, browsed, and as Carter put it, thumbed, skipped through and reviewed Jimpson's prison file while the other board members interviewed two other applicants. It was estimated that approximately fifteen to twenty minutes was spent by Figgs in examining Jimpson's file, and another fifteen minutes was spent by the board in the actual interview of Jimpson.

No other member of the board examined the prison file on Jimpson, and the other board members' knowledge of Jimpson's record was limited to what Figgs reported was contained in this file. Carter did have the chairman's file to compare with what Figgs related, but he never testified what effect, if any, the information in the chairman's file had upon his decision.

Mary Ruth Maxwell, assistant director of the alcohol and drug rehabilitation center at Parchman, accompanied Jimpson at his interview, and she recommended parole. She did not testify at trial.

Carter did not recall whether the 1984 Early Release Risk Evaluation (also referred to as the Matrix Evaluation) was in the file.

It is not clear from the trial record what Figgs related to Sykes and Carter as to Jimpson's prison record. Figgs testified repeatedly that he gave the other two all the "pertinent" information, but he never specified what he told them.

Figgs did consider an Early Release Risk Evaluation prepared February 16, 1983. An Early Release Risk Evaluation is a form prepared by a member of the staff of the department of corrections following an interview with the prisoner and a guard acquainted with him. It takes into account prior convictions, prior parole or release violations, types of criminal convictions, RVRs, institutional training, personal relations and societal interactions, attitude, emotional and mental stability, preparations or plans following release, and a score is given on each of these categories. On the 1983 forms a low score is 0-13, 10-14 is low medium, 15-18 is high medium, and 19-38 is high. A low to low medium is favorable to a parole. A high medium or high score indicates the prisoner should remain until the completion of his sentence. The 1983 evaluation gives Jimpson a total score of 7. Figgs testified he told the members of this report.

Figgs also considered that at the February 29, 1984, meeting of the previous parole Also in the file was a psychological assessment and profile made by a prison psychologist on March 21, 1979. This test indicated Jimpson should not be considered for parole. The examiner found psychotic thinking, an alienation from people, and a high susceptibility to alcohol or drug abuse. Figgs testified that he told the other board members of this report, but they denied it.

board, it had denied and continued Jimpson's application for nine months, which to him indicated that if in the ensuing interim his behavior was satisfactory, his application for parole should be favorably considered.

Figgs also told the other board members that Jimpson had not had any rule violations in three and one-half years prior to their meeting.

Figgs testified that the board considered a community comment form from Quitman County and the years Jimpson had been in prison.

Figgs testified that he had told the other board members of Jimpson's convictions and prison record, but as above noted, he gave no specifics.

The board also had before it a letter from an organization called "Friends of Alcoholics," or FOA, in Pocahontas, Hinds County, dated May 25, 1984, agreeing to sponsor Jimpson as an inmate for a four to six months' treatment, after which the organization would assist him in obtaining employment. Under the proposal Jimpson would have to remain at the facility for two months, following which he could have a pass to visit his immediate family only.

The other two board members, Sykes and Carter, had no recollection of being told of an Early Release Risk Evaluation prepared January 25, 1984, in which Jimpson scored 18, with 18-29 on this evaluation form being considered a high score. It is not clear that Figgs saw or considered this report, himself.

After stating that he informed Carter and Sykes of the 1984 Risk Evaluation form, Figgs said:

I told them of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1992
    ...523 So.2d 36 (Miss.1988); Grantham v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, 522 So.2d 219 (Miss.1988) rev'd. sub nom. Sykes v. Grantham, 567 So.2d 200 (Miss.1990); and State v. Lewis, 498 So.2d 321 (Miss.1986). This is the first instance, however, in which the constitutionality of the Act has b......
  • Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 5, 2015
    ...Raas v. State, 729 N.W.2d 444, 449–50 (Iowa 2007) ; Knight v. State, 99 Mich.App. 226, 297 N.W.2d 889, 894–95 (1980) ; Sykes v. Grantham, 567 So.2d 200, 214 (Miss.1990) ; Starkenburg v. State, 282 Mont. 1, 934 P.2d 1018, 1028 (1997) ; Poppe v. City of Lincoln, 15 Neb.App. 164, 723 N.W.2d 66......
  • Kmart Corp. v. Kroger Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • August 9, 2013
    ...795 (Miss.2012). Poor judgment in the exercise of discretionary authority is insufficient to pierce sovereign immunity. Sykes v. Grantham, 567 So.2d 200, 212 (Miss.1990). A duty is ministerial, and thus not covered by the immunity provisions of the MTCA, “if it is positively imposed by law ......
  • Westbrook v. City of Jackson, Mississippi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • August 22, 1991
    ...since the provision of water services and fire protection is a governmental function which is discretionary in nature. See Sykes v. Grantham, 567 So.2d 200 (Miss.1990); Poyner v. Gilmore, 171 Miss. 859, 158 So. 922 (1939). Plaintiffs counter that defendants were required by state and local ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT