Double Jeopardy Probation Violation In Mississippi

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause do not apply to probation revocation hearings, if there is no evidence of an acquittal or conviction on the merits of the crime charged on which revocation was based. Lightsey v. State, 493 So. 2d 375, 377-78 (Miss. 1986). The Mississippi Supreme Court has also held that probation revocation hearings are not criminal in nature. Ray v. State, 229 So. 2d 579, 581 (Miss. 1969). In the Fifth Circuit case of Showery v. Samaniego, 814 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1987), the court commented that the revocation of an appellate bond was equivalent to the non-criminal nature of parole and probation revocation hearings. the court further explained this conclusion by stating the following: even though the alleged basis for bond revocation is the commission of a subsequent offense, the proceedings are not designed to obtain a conviction for the violation of that offense. They are designed to assess the propriety of allowing the defendant, who has already been convicted and sentenced on a separate charge, to remain free on bond. Such proceedings are not "essentially criminal." Id. at 203. the court ultimately held that there was no double jeopardy violation. Id. at 204. The Double Jeopardy Clause is contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This clause is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cook v. State, 671 So. 2d 1327, 1331 (Miss. 1996). the Fifth Amendment does not allow an individual to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence. Id. In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556, 113 S. Ct. 2849 (1993), the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to successive punishments and successive prosecutions for the same criminal offense. This Court interprets the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Mississippi Constitution consistent with authoritative constructions of the Constitution of the United States. Lee v. State, 469 So. 2d 1225, 1228 (Miss. 1985).