I'll add some info to Tim's response. It is possible Moscow Pitts in the MS section is actually the man from the 4th Tennessee. However, in the original cemetery book (currently on display at Carnton) the entry for Section 60, Grave 130 reads H. P., not H. R. or H. T. This entry is followed by the entry, as Tim mentioned, "supposed to be M. Pitts." This appears to be in the same handwriting as the original so likely the addendum was entered at nearly the same time as the initials. Furthermore, this soldier is clearly identified as being a member of Co. B, 4th Tennessee. The 4th Tennessee roster does list a Moscow Pitts as a member of Co. G so I think the evidence points more strongly to him being buried properly in the Tennessee section.
Now back to the Mississippi Grave 296 in Section 41. There is no doubt a marker adorns that grave with a simple engraving which reads Moscow Pitts. There is no unit information or anything else, just a name. If a Tennessee family came looking for their Moscow Pitts at some point after the war there is nothing in the original cemetery book that would have pointed them toward the grave in the Mississippi section. In fact, all the available evidence would have pointed them to the grave in the Tennessee section. Thus, in my opinion, the marker in the Mississippi section was not erected by a Tennessee family.
No doubt that M. T. Pitts of the 39th Mississippi does not show up as a Franklin casualty. But frankly a significant number of those buried in the cemetery never showed up as KIA because of the irregularity with unit reports in the latter half of 1864.
Tim is correct about men from one state being buried in another. A great example of this is Section 21, Grave 90. Thomas Napier was a Texan who ended up in the Arkansas plot. However, I do not think Moscow Pitts the Tennessean is in the Mississippi section. I think the weight of evidence has him right where he should be, in the Tennessee section.