Chazz Nero v. State of Mississippi
This text of Chazz Nero v. State of Mississippi (Chazz Nero v. State of Mississippi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2025-CA-00276-COA
CHAZZ NERO APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W. ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANGELA DENISE GREEN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON ELIZABETH HORNE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/12/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., LAWRENCE AND EMFINGER, JJ.
LAWRENCE, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Chazz Nero pled guilty to statutory rape in 2013 and was sentenced to twenty years
in Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) custody. However, the last fifteen years
of that sentence would be suspended if Nero successfully completed five years of supervised
probation. After serving five years in custody, Nero was released and placed on supervised
probation. Months later, Nero was arrested for multiple felonies. His probation was
subsequently revoked, and Nero was returned to MDOC custody. Nero filed his first motion
for post-conviction collateral relief (PCR) in 2024. The motion was denied. Aggrieved,
Nero appealed. Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. On December 10, 2013, Chazz Nero was convicted of statutory rape in the Circuit
Court of Washington County. He was sentenced to twenty years in MDOC custody, with the
“execution of the last fifteen years of said sentence to be suspended conditioned upon [his]
successful completion of five years supervised probation under the direction of” the
MDOC. (Emphasis added).
¶3. Accordingly, Nero was released from MDOC custody on approximately August 26,
2018, and placed on supervised probation. He signed a form acknowledging the conditions
of “Community Supervision in Mississippi” three days later. On October 21, 2018, Nero was
arrested by the Greenville Police Department. Consequently, on December 12, 2018, the
circuit court entered an order revoking Nero’s “post-release supervision.” The order stated
that Nero had violated the terms of his probation by failing to obey laws. Specifically, Nero
“was arrested by the Greenville Police Department and charged with Aggravated Assault,
Attempt[ed] Armed Robbery, and Conspiracy.”
¶4. Nero was indicted on August 24, 2020. The indictment alleged Nero had committed
the following crimes: aggravated assault, armed robbery, conspiracy, and possession of a
firearm as a felon. The case against him was dismissed on May 30, 2023, after his co-
defendant—the “necessary and material witness” against him—invoked his right to remain
silent.
¶5. On October 1, 2024, Nero filed a motion “to set aside the order revoking probation,
terminate probation, and release [Nero] from the custody of the [MDOC].” Among other
arguments, Nero contended that the terms of his probation were not clearly set out at his
2 sentencing hearing.1
¶6. The court treated the motion as one for PCR and ordered the State to file a response.
The State filed its response on December 10, 2024, first asserting that Nero’s motion was
unsworn and therefore improper. Continuing, the State argued that the court had imposed
a legal sentence and that the revocation of Nero’s probation after his arrest was the right
result.
¶7. The court entered an order denying Nero’s motion on February 4, 2025. In relevant
part, the order found that Nero had been adequately notified of the terms of his probation.
On March 6, 2025, Nero appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶8. “We review a circuit court’s dismissal or denial of a PCR motion for abuse of
discretion and decline to reverse unless the circuit court’s decision is clearly erroneous.”
Hamilton v. State, 367 So. 3d 1039, 1041 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Taylor v. State,
348 So. 3d 1017, 1019 (¶4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)). “We review questions of law de novo.”
Id.
ANALYSIS
¶9. On appeal, Nero argues that the terms and conditions of his supervised probation were
never set out by the trial court and, thus, were never communicated to him. Nero specifically
alleges that the trial court violated Mississippi Code Annotated sections 47-7-33 and 47-7-35
(Rev. 2023) by failing to “determine the terms and conditions of his probation” before
1 While Nero submitted other legal arguments to the trial court, only one was raised in this appeal.
3 revoking it.
¶10. In support, Nero cites Artis v. State, 643 So. 2d 533 (Miss. 1994), a supreme court
case with a similar, though not identical, scenario to the instant case. Artis was given a
similar sentence: twenty-five years in MDOC custody with twenty years suspended on one
count and twenty years in MDOC custody with the last fifteen years suspended on the second
count. Id. at 534. After serving his required sentence in custody, Artis was released on
supervised probation and later arrested and convicted of a crime. Id. Notably, in Artis’s
case, the trial court “made no mention, orally or in writing, of terms and conditions of the
suspended sentences[.]” Id. at 537. The court held that “due process requires that the trial
judge at least orally inform the defendant of the terms and conditions upon which his
suspended sentence is contingent before it may be properly revoked for the violation of those
terms and conditions.” Id. at 538.
¶11. However, the supreme court later clarified the Artis holding in McClinton v. State, 799
So. 2d 123 (Miss. 2001). The court cited its previous decision in Artis, stating that the case
“does not require a court to orally inform the probationer of the terms and conditions of his
probation, when such information has been recorded in written form.” Id. at 126 (¶6). Here,
Nero acknowledged the terms of his probation on a signed document. This Court recently
addressed that exact scenario in Miller v. State, 412 So. 3d 393, 397 (¶18) & n.5 (Miss. Ct.
App. 2024). Miller held that because the defendant signed his sentencing order, he was
adequately aware of the terms and conditions associated with his probation. Id. at (¶¶17-18).
¶12. Here, the trial judge admittedly did not orally read Nero the terms and conditions of
4 his probation. However, those terms and conditions were recorded in writing within the
“Conditions of Community Supervision in Mississippi” form signed by Nero upon his release
to supervised probation. Specifically, those terms included that Nero shall “[c]ommit no
offense against the laws of this or any other state of the United States, or of the United
States.” Nero was arrested for aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery, both clearly
offenses “against the laws of this . . . state[.]”
¶13. Nero cites Mississippi Code Annotated section 47-7-35 for the proposition that the
timing of his receipt of the written terms and conditions of probation (after his plea sentence
in court) as authority for this Court to reverse the trial court’s denial of his PCR. Section 47-
7-35 does not address, in any form or fashion, when Nero had to receive notice of the terms
and conditions of his probation. However, in McClinton, the supreme court approved
reliance on receipt of those terms and conditions after the plea hearing and before beginning
probation.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chazz Nero v. State of Mississippi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chazz-nero-v-state-of-mississippi-missctapp-2026.