Convicted killer James Williams, III is a free man yet again after he was arrested nearly a year ago. Williams was paroled in May 2023 after serving 18 years in prison for killing his father and stepmother when he was 17 years old.
Pearl police charged Williams with a first-offense DUI in October 2023. His court date is September 19 at 1 PM in Pearl Municipal Court.
The Parole Board revoked his parole in November 2023 and ordered him to return to prison for at least one year. Williams sued, arguing the misdemeanor arrest only qualified for a "technical center violation" instead of a parole revocation. Since the arrest was Williams's first post-release offense, he would only serve 90 days in the TVC, hence the lawsuit.
Hinds County Circuit Judge Debra Gibbs agreed with Williams. The learned jurist stated the Parole Board determined that Williams' misdemeanor arrest was a violation of his parole. However, Judge Gibbs said the arrest was his "first technical violation," thus qualifying him for the lesser sentence.
The State conceded in its response the DUI arrest was only a technical violation and not grounds for revoking parole. Since Williams had already served 90 days in prison post-release, the Court ordered MDOC to release Williams "IMMEDIATELY."
16 comments:
KF - you should note that "the State" in this instance, that didn't object but in fact agreed, was none other than the Honorable Jody Owens, Hinds County DA at the present (but not much longer) time.
This isn’t the last time we will be reading about his escapades
Doesn't mean wrong. That is what the law is now. Blame 585. Must be a felony arrest, indictment, or conviction.
He did his time. Leave him be, he doesn’t need you politicizing his life.
He did his time. And when freed, broke the law again. Only God can help this man and hopefully we won't read about him hurting or killing anyone else. I hope some sound souls embrace this man and direct him on a positive path. If he decides to choose a less than legal life path........send him back to prison if he breaks the law again, and no cute law cases about infringing on his "rights."
Sorry KF, that's not "what the law is". The law uses the term "technical" violations, but does not state whether 'technical' refers to such things as missing meetings with parole officer, speeding, failing a drug test -- or as in this case, a crime such as DUI, domestic abuse, or other misdemeanor.
You might can 'blame' the legislature for not clearly drafting a law, but there is a lot of space in the world of 'technical violations' - and just because the honorable Judge Gibbs and her counterplayer in crime DA Owens want to let this (and now many others) out of the pokey hiding under their view of "technical" doesn't make it 'what the law is'.
So he got 18 years for killing his father AND stepmother when he was 17 years old. Are you seeing this potential Rankin County jurists?
Er, Potential Jurors not Jurists.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals held the exact same thing last week in Pryor. Blame the parole board for letting him out the first time. Once they parole him, there are laws.
https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO178116.pdf
Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-37(5)(a) provides in part: If the court revokes probation for one or more technical violations, the court shall impose a period of imprisonment to be served in either a technical violation center or a restitution center not to exceed ninety (90) days for the first revocation and not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days for the second revocation.
If I was a relative----
Standard procedure is to first ask the Special Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Parole Board if they wish to file the response on behalf of the board. They declined
This happens often and is pretty much precedent at this point with appellate courts. Interesting enough how many people don't understand that the legislatures' lazy drafting forces DA's to concede these arguments. They'd lose otherwise with appellate action.
This is your conservative paradox. A. Cant have government spend money. B Got to be seen as tough on crime. But housing prisoners is really expensive. So to get B without A we make super tough sentences then build a million ways you won’t do half and make it impossible to be sent back
@2:00 - cite please. Where is the Board's decision recorded?
@8:37 do you mean the board originally granting this person parole? Or their attempt to re-impose a life sentence due to a first offense dui? Both are public records
Post a Comment