Cosner v State

Folks need to remember, just because his appeal was denied, doesn't mean the court ruled a FTR Charge can be considered a sex crime, the court did not rule on the merits of the issues. The court ruled he failed to follow his administrative remedies, so the issues are still open for later review (if necessary) after he completes an administrative appeal with the DOC (He needs to review that DOC Policy).

3-12-2013 Mississippi:

Cosner v State
No. 2012-CP-00101-COA.

Chris Cosner appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his second motion for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR). Cosner argues the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) erred when it deemed his failure to register as a sex offender as a "sex crime" and his conviction of possession with intent as a crime of violence. Cosner argues that this treatment makes his sentence mandatory day-for-day and makes him ineligible for parole, meritorious earned time, and trusty status. His second PCR motion is based on the same grounds as his first PCR motion, but with different named defendants. We find no error and affirm.

FACTS
¶2. On February 6, 2009, Cosner pled guilty to three charges: (1) possession of greater than 500 grams of marijuana (schedule I) with intent to sell, transfer, or distribute; (2) possession of greater than 100 dosage units of Alprazolam (schedule IV) with intent to sell, transfer, or distribute; and (3) failure to register as a sex offender.

¶3. Cosner filed his first PCR motion on December 7, 2009. In this motion, Cosner argued that he would not have pled guilty if he had been told that he would have to serve day-for-day and that his charges were considered violent. He also argued he was under mental duress at the time of his plea and that his counsel was ineffective. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2010. On the morning of the hearing, Cosner decided to withdraw his motion before the hearing began.

¶4. Cosner then filed his federal habeas petition on November 15, 2010. He admitted that he had "not pursued an appeal or completed post-conviction remedies available to him in state court."

... ... ...

¶14. Cosner claimed a denial of "due process of law rights and double jeopardy for punitive punishment for a crime already consummated." Cosner's sentence expiration argument is a challenge to MDOC's policies. Practically speaking, Cosner requested a review of his inmate classification. "For many such questions regarding confusion about the operation of the state's system of incarceration, the proper procedure is for a prisoner to seek relief through the administrative processes of the Department of Corrections." Burns v. State, 933 So.2d 329, 331 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §§ 47-5-801 — 47-5-807 (Rev. 2004)).

¶15. Agency procedures first, rather than post-conviction collateral relief, govern certain issues like inmate classification. Id. (citing Lewis v. State, 761 So.2d 922, 923 (¶¶3-4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)). Classification of inmates is not an issue properly brought in a PCR motion; rather, it is within the administrative purview of the MDOC. Cosner should pursue administrative remedies available through the procedures of the MDOC. Therefore, we find no error and affirm.

¶16. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.

---

Article: Inmate loses appeal in classification dispute