Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2025-CP-00834-COA RODERIKUS DESHON MALONE A/K/A RICO APPELLANT D. MALONE A/K/A RICO A/K/A RODERIKUS D. MALONE v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/10/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES E. WEBSTER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RODERIKUS DESHON MALONE (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/01/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McCARTY, JJ. McCARTY, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In 1995, at age sixteen, Rico D. Malone was sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of murder. Twenty-two years later he was paroled. But just three years after that grant of parole, Roderikus D. Malone was indicted in Tunica County for felony possession of marijuana and ultimately plead guilty. He received quite a good deal in return—time served, with 3 years of post-release supervision. Around the same time as his sentencing, he was arrested for other misdemeanor crimes. These charges were later dropped. ¶2. But Malone’s guilty plea to a felony triggered further action by the Parole Board. The Board issued a warrant for Malone’s arrest, finding that there was “reasonable cause” that he had violated the terms of his parole by virtue of the felony conviction for marijuana possession. Malone was re-incarcerated on the original conviction for homicide. ¶3. Malone filed a “Motion to Dismiss Probation Affidavit and Arrest Warrant against Defendant Roderikus D. Malone.” This was subsequently considered a motion for post- conviction relief by the trial court. The PCR motion rested on Malone’s central thesis that he was incarcerated due to his post-release supervision being revoked due to the simple assault charges. Under his theory, there was no reason he was incarcerated, since the misdemeanor crimes he was arrested for were dismissed and were insufficient to justify revocation. ¶4. The trial court conducted a hearing on the matter. Malone deployed a secondary argument: he could not have had his parole revoked, because the 1995 murder conviction was in the name of “Rico D. Malone,” and he was in fact “Roderikus D. Malone,” not Rico. The trial court inquired if there were fingerprints from the 1995 intake of Rico Malone and then ordered fingerprints of the petitioner to be taken for the sake of comparison. ¶5. At a second hearing, the State presented testimony from a latent fingerprint examiner with the Mississippi Forensics Lab. The witness testified that the 1995 fingerprints of Rico Malone and the 2025 fingerprints of Roderikus Malone were “from the same source.” ¶6. Malone called two witnesses. The first, his brother Frederick, testified he had never known Malone by the name Rico. The State’s first question on cross-examination inquired whether Frederick “was aware of any prior convictions of your brother Roderikus?” The witness answered “Other than – other than the ‘95 conviction[?]” He followed that up by 2 stating that he believed the 1995 conviction was for “Murder and two aggravated assaults.” ¶7. A cousin of Malone was called to the stand next, who likewise agreed he had never known Roderikus Malone to go by the name Rico. But like Malone’s brother Frederick, the cousin agreed Malone had been incarcerated for murder and aggravated assault in 1995. ¶8. And lastly, when the trial court asked Malone himself, “were you convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated assault in 1995?” He responded “Yeah.” ¶9. The trial court denied relief. It found that “notwithstanding any claim that [Malone] was incorrectly arrested and/or held based upon a dismissed charge of domestic violence, Malone’s current incarceration is pursuant to a warrant issued by the Mississippi Parole Board based upon Malone’s plea of guilty to the crime of possession of marijuana.” ¶10. Malone appealed and the matter was assigned to us for review. He claims a dozen assignments of error, but we confine our review to the only issue discussed by the trial court. See Griffin v. State, 824 So. 2d 632, 635 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (“Issues raised for the first time on appeal are procedurally barred from review as they have not first been addressed by the trial court”). ¶11. As it was in the trial court, Malone’s core argument on appeal is that he “is being held” despite there being “(2) identities which Judge Webster never corrected the identity of Roderikus Malone . . . from Rico D. Malone[.]” In Malone’s view, this means that the petitioner “is being Falsely Imprisoned as Rico D. Malone,” who was out on probation for the 1995 conviction for murder. ¶12. Critically though, Malone does not cite any law in support of his argument, protesting 3 that his “case is very complex/rare” so there is no exact authority on point. ¶13. However, our standard of review is clear as to how cases of this type are addressed. “When reviewing a circuit court’s decision to deny a PCR motion, this Court will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless they are found to be clearly erroneous.” Pinkton v. State, 408 So. 3d 657, 659 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025). ¶14. The trial court here made a finding of fact that the “Rico Malone” who was convicted and served time starting in 1995 for murder was the same person as “Roderikus Malone” who plead guilty to felony possession of marijuana in 2022. This finding of fact was based on the fingerprint examination, the testimony of Malone’s brother and cousin, and Malone’s own concession. ¶15. The State argues that Malone has failed to support his claim this was error “with any proof,” and we agree. His own witnesses conceded he was incarcerated in 1995 for felony crimes. Despite his argument about mistaken identity, or that his probation was improperly revoked, the record establishes his felony conviction for possession of marijuana was the basis for the revocation of his parole. Therefore, there was no error in the trial court’s denial of relief and the order is AFFIRMED. BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS, McDONALD, LAWRENCE, EMFINGER, WEDDLE AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR. 4