Case: 37Cll:98-cr-09879-BT Document#: 16 Filed: 08/16/2024 Page 1 of 4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI
JAMES ESTES SMITH
VERSUS CAUSE NO. 37cil:98-CR-9879-BT
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PAROLE CONSIDERATION
BEFORE THE COURT is James Estes Smith's Petition for Parole
Consideration, (Doc. 14). The Court denies the Petition as frivolous and for
alternative reasons discussed below.
Facts
In 2000, this Court convicted Smith for the crime of capital murder and
sentenced him to life imprisonment. Since that time, Smith has made several
attempts at obtaining relief from his sentence. Smith v. State, 150 So. 3d 973,
975 (-,J-,J 2-5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). Most recently, in October 2023, he asked
this Court to issue a declaratory judgment that he was eligible for parole
consideration under the Mississippi Earned Parole Eligibility Act (MEPEA).
(Doc. 1). The Court denied that Petition, (Doc. 4), and he appealed. The appeal
was dismissed for failure to pay costs. (Doc. 12).
Smith now files another Petition for Parole Consideration. He argues he is
.•
eligible for parole consideration, despite the plain language of the statute,
because § 47-7-3 violates the Equal Protection Clause because a 2014
amendment to the statute does not apply to all prisoners. FI L·E D
FILED Page 1 of4
LAMAR
COUNTY
AUG 16 2024 ctRCUIT
CLERK
SEP 16 2024
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
~~
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 37Cl1:98-cr-09879-BT Document#: 16 Filed: 08/16/2024 Page 2 of 4
Analysis
1. Equal Protection
Smith argues that§ 47-7-3(1)(c) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it creates a special
"class" of inmates who are denied the right to parole consideration. Smith has
not joined all necessary partiE~s to challenge the constitutionality of a state
statute. and this Court may not consider this issue. Miss. R. Civ. P. 24(d).
Notwithstanding the lack of necessary parties, the Mississippi Court of
Appeals found§ 47-7-3 does not involve suspect classifications, and thus, does
not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Hopson v. Mississippi State Parole
Board, 976 So. 2d 973, 976-77 (,r,r n-12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). Therefore, this
issue is without merit.
2. Plain Language of§ 47-7-3
As Smith points out in his Petition, courts, in applying statutes, should look
first to the statute's words, and, if unambiguous, apply the plain meaning of
the statute. Moore v. State, 203 So. 3d 775, 780 (,r 10) (Miss. Ct. App.) (citations
omitted). Section 47-7-3(1)(c) states:
Capital offenders. No person sentenced for the following offenses
shall be eligible for parole:
(i) Capital murder committed on or after July 1, 1994, ...
(ii) Any offense to which an offender is sentenced to life
imprisonment ... or
F I L _E
(iii) Any offense to which an offender is sentenced to -life
imprisonment without eligibility for parole . . . . o
lMMR AUG 16 202~ CIRCUIT
COUNTY CLERK
~~
Page 2 of 4
Case: 37Cll:98-cr-09879-BT Document#: 16 Filed: 08/16/2024 Page 3 of 4
Smith was convicted of capital murder committed on or after July 1, 1994,
and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. By the plain language of this
statute, he is ineligible for parole.
3. Frivolous Filing
A frivolous motion is one that has no realistic chance of success, presents
no arguably sound basis in fact or law, and no facts are shown to warrant relief.
Waddell v. State, 999 So. 2d 375, 378 (,113) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008). As stated
above, Mississippi courts have already established that § 47-7-3 does not
violate the Equal Protection Clause. Further, that statute is unambiguous that
those inmates, like Smith, convicted of capital murder are ineligible for parole.
Therefore, Smith's Petition has no realistic chance of success.
Smith has also previously sought substantially the same relief from this
Court. In October 2023, he sought a declaratory judgment that he was eligible
\
for parole consideration. His argument there was that the Mississippi Earned
Parole Eligibility Act made him eligible for parole. Smith could have brought
his current argument at that time rather than seeking relief piecemeal, further
crowding the dockets of the Court. The Petition is frivolous 1 and should be
dismissed.
FILED
= AUG 16 2024 CIRCUIT
CLERK
~4:_
1 While§ 47-5-138 allows the Court to order MDOC to forfeit accrued earned time for
frivolous filings, Smith is serving a life sentence without parole eligibility, and is not
accruing earned time toward release.
Page 3 of 4
Case: 37Cll:98-cr-09879-BT Document#: 16 Filed: 08/16/2024 Page 4 of 4
Conclusion
James Smith was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of capital
murder. Giving the language of§ 47.7.3 its plain meaning, this Court has
found he may not be considered for parole because those who committed capital
murder are explicitly ineligible for parole. This was true in October 2023 when
Smith last argued for parole consideration, and it is true now. While the
statute makes those who committed certain crimes ineligible for parole, such
a classification is not suspect, and does not raise an equal protection issue.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED A...~D ADJUDGED the Petition for Parole
Consideration is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 16th day of August 2024.
CIRCUIT JUDGE
FILED
= AUG 16 202, Cl=
~~
Page 4 of 4
