Wilde v. State
| Citation | 303 So.3d 792 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2019-CP-00416-COA,2019-CP-00416-COA |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Arthur WILDE Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi Appellee |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ARTHUR WILDE (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DARRELL CLAYTON BAUGHN, Jackson
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., TINDELL, McDONALD AND McCARTY, JJ.
McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Arthur Wilde challenges the denial of parole in this appeal after the trial court denied his requested relief. Because the decision to grant or deny parole is within the exclusive authority of the Mississippi Parole Board and because Wilde has not established a claim that the Board's treatment violated his right to equal protection, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2. In 1981, Wilde "pled guilty and was convicted of one count of murder and two counts of aggravated assault" and "was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections [ (MDOC) ]." Wildee v. State , 930 So. 2d 478, 479 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).1 He made attempts to attack that plea via filings for post-conviction relief (PCR) in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1997, and 2005. Id . In the last of those cases, we rejected the PCR as successive-writ barred. Id .
¶3. Afterward, Wilde shifted from attacking his conviction to seeking parole. A request for parole was denied, after which he sought "a motion for injunctive relief" by alleging "that the Mississippi Parole Board's denial of his parole was racially motivated and biased." Wilde v. Miss. Parole Bd. , 144 So. 3d 175, 175 (¶2) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). "Further, he claimed that the Parole Board discriminates against black inmates and gives them a longer set-off than white inmates convicted of similar crimes." Id .
¶4. The trial court denied relief. Id. We affirmed, finding that parole was within the jurisdiction of the Parole Board and that circuit courts generally do not have the authority to determine parole eligibility. Id . at 176 (¶4). We also found that Wilde had "fail[ed] to show evidence that establishes a clear violation of his equal-protection rights." Id . at 177 (¶8).
¶5. Wilde then sought "to be declared eligible for parole" by the federal court system. See Wilde v. Miss. Parole Bd. Members , No. 3:16-cv-00408-TSL-MTP, 2016 WL 6495918, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 14, 2016). Per precedent, the magistrate judge concluded that "[p]arole decisions are solely within the discretion of the parole board," and in Mississippi there is no liberty interest in parole. Id. at *2. As a result, because the inmate "has no constitutional right to parole, he can have no constitutionally protected right to a parole eligibility date." Id . The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, with some modifications, and dismissed the case. Wilde v. Miss. Parole Bd. Members , No. 3:16-cv-00408-TSL-MTP, 2016 WL 6465471, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 31, 2016).
¶6. Wilde was up for parole again in 2018. He showed he was free of a rule violation report (RVR) for two years (2007-2008 and 2009-2010), he had received his high school equivalency diploma in 2008, and he had completed 1,550 hours of welding training; 1,779 hours of carpentry training; and 1,450 hours of instruction in industrial electricity.
¶7. Nonetheless, the Board denied his request for parole. The denial listed four reasons for denial: (1) the serious nature of the offenses under which Wilde was convicted; (2) opposition in the community to his release; (3) the Board's concern that he did not have "the social, mental, or educational resources" to "function successfully on parole"; and (4) "[t]he Board believes the ability or willingness to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen is lacking." The Board further checked a box under "Special Instructions to Offender," indicating that he should appear "before the Board with NO RVRS." By this action, Wilde would next be eligible for parole five years later, in 2023.
¶8. After the denial of parole, Wilde filed a handwritten request in the Warren County Circuit Court. The caption was styled Wilde v. Mississippi Parole Board , and the request was titled "Notice of Motion for an Order to Show Cause for Habeas Relief." It was accompanied by a fuller request titled "Petition for an Order to Show Cause." The pleading stated that "Petitioner is not attacking the legality of his sentence."
¶9. Instead, Wilde argued that the Parole Board's decision to deny him parole was "racially motivated," alleging that "black men and black women must serve[ ] longer periods of confinement" than white inmates and that the Parole Board's actions were "solely based upon one race rather than the crimes committed in this State." In this way the request echoed his earlier case but contained more examples of white inmates who had been released.
¶10. The trial court denied the motion, finding "that the petition is successive, time barred, and frivolous," and was further "barred by doctrine of res judicata," citing our 2013 decision. Wilde timely appealed from the trial court's decision.
DISCUSSION
¶11. Wilde essentially seeks for the Judiciary to force the Parole Board to grant him parole. "Yet it is the Parole Board, not the courts, that has exclusive authority over the grant or denial of parole." Smith v. State , No. 2018-CP-00814-COA, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2019 WL 3297052, at *1 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. July 23, 2019), cert. denied , 289 So. 3d 310 (Miss. 2020). "Our Legislature has vested the determination of the grant of parole with the Parole Board." Id . "An offender shall be placed on parole only when ... the board believes that he is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen." Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-17 (Rev. 2015). This law required the trial court to deny Wilde's request since in Mississippi "an inmate is not guaranteed parole, even when eligible." Smith , ––– So.3d at ––––, 2019 WL 3297052, at *2 (¶9).
¶12. Wilde's alternative argument is a more fleshed out version of the same argument he made before this Court in 2013—that the Parole Board treats inmates differently based upon race. We previously rejected the earlier incarnation of his argument, finding he failed to show a clear violation of his rights to equal protection. Wilde , 144 So. 3d at 177 (¶9).
¶13. Our precedent declares that "inmates are protected against racial discrimination by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Mangum v. Miss. Parole Bd. , 76 So. 3d 762, 770 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). "Further, the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race." Id . ; see Hilliard v. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 759 F.2d 1190, 1193 (5th Cir. 1985) (). To maintain a claim for equal protection, one must show "proof of a racially discriminatory purpose[.]" Mangum , 76 So. 3d at 767 (¶11). "However, proof rarely consists of direct evidence," as "evidence is usually circumstantial." Id .
¶14. In Mangum , we examined the petition of an inmate who "provided specific examples of unequal treatment," including "citing a specific example of another similarly situated white inmate who was granted parole." Id. at 770 (¶22). The white inmate had allegedly received parole even though he "was convicted of a more serious crime," "had extensive community opposition to his release on parole," had served less time than Mangum, and "unlike the white inmate, Mangum had numerous favorable recommendations from high-ranking prison officials." Id . at 768 (¶14). In accord with precedent, we found "that it is not beyond doubt that Mangum could not prove his allegations of racial discrimination," and so we reversed for an evidentiary hearing before the trial court. Id . at 770 (¶¶22, 24).
¶15. Wilde seeks similar relief, asking us to "remand this case to the active docket of [the circuit court] for a ruling on his Equal Protection Claim ...." In support, he lists several white male and female inmates who he alleges "have served far less time than most blacks." He also lists other white inmates over a large span of time who he contends have served far less time than he.
¶16. However, the comparisons that Wilde seeks to make are not as close as the one made by the inmate in Mangum . In that case, the inmate was able to closely tie his denial of parole to a contemporary grant of parole to another inmate. As the Fifth Circuit set out in Hilliard , a key component of these cases is whether a prisoner "was treated unfairly compared to other prisoners who were similarly situated ." Hilliard , 759 F.2d at 1193 (emphasis added).
¶17. In this case, the Parole Board's decision to deny Wilde parole was based on four grounds. His pro se brief examines many of these grounds, such as opposition in the community to his release and whether he has sought an educational grounding so that he can flourish when returned to society. The distinction in this case is the Parole Board's concern that Wilde would not "fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen." Implicit in this decision was that Wilde had a history of incurring RVRs. This even led the Parole Board to give him special instructions that he needed to seek parole in the future "with NO RVRS." While Wilde's argument focuses on the allegation that white inmates receive parole for the same crimes he committed, the underlying crime is only one component of what the Parole Board examines. Even by Wilde's own proof, he had only been free of rule violations for two years circa 2007 and 2009—neither of those was within the immediate time period when the Parole Board reviewed him for parole in 2018. ¶18. Wilde argues that he was parole-eligible in 1993 and that others were released in that time period for similar crimes. Yet the only parole denial...
To continue reading
Request your trial