Roderikus Deshon Malone a/k/a Rico D. Malone a/k/a Rico a/k/a Roderikus D. Malone v. State of Mississippi

2026-09-01

Summary · law.co

Holding. The trial court's factual finding that the 1995 murder conviction under the name 'Rico D. Malone' and the 2022 marijuana conviction of 'Roderikus D. Malone' involved the same person was supported by fingerprint evidence, witness testimony, and the petitioner's own concessions, and therefore the denial of post-conviction relief was affirmed.

Roderikus Deshon Malone was convicted of murder in 1995 at age sixteen and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was paroled after twenty-two years but was arrested and charged with felony marijuana possession about three years later. He pleaded guilty and received a sentence of time served with post-release supervision. The Parole Board subsequently issued a warrant for his arrest, finding reasonable cause that he had violated parole by committing a felony, and he was re-incarcerated on the original murder conviction.

Malone filed a motion for post-conviction relief arguing that the parole revocation was improper because it was based on misdemeanor charges that were dismissed. He also advanced a secondary argument that he could not have been subject to parole revocation on the 1995 murder conviction because the conviction was under the name 'Rico D. Malone' while he claimed to be 'Roderikus D. Malone.' The trial court held a hearing where fingerprint evidence, testimony from family members, and Malone's own admission all confirmed that the person convicted in 1995 as Rico Malone was the same person as Roderikus Malone. The trial court found that Malone's current incarceration stemmed from the Parole Board warrant issued based on his guilty plea to marijuana possession, and it denied his motion for relief.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether identity mismatch between conviction names provides grounds for parole revocation
Whether parole revocation was proper based on felony conviction versus dismissed misdemeanor charges
Standard of review for factual findings in post-conviction relief proceedings

Procedural posture

Malone appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in Tunica County Circuit Court to the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority 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

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 postconviction 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

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

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.