The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There are four divorce-related decisions, two direct criminal appeals, a tort case dismissed for failure to state a claim, a negligence case dismissed for want of prosecution, and a PCR case.
Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings in a divorce action, holding that that the chancellor did not err in denying appellant’s Rule 60 motion that was filed after the mandate from the appeal of the case had been entered because the mandate rule barred reconsideration and that the chancellor did not err in finding the appellant in contempt or in incarcerating him for it.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate)
Clark v. State, 2023-KA-00011-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of simple possession of a controlled substance, holding that after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief, appellant’s pro se brief, and the record that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that there were no other issues to warrant reversal.
(10-0)
Scott v. State, 2022-KA-00830-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of touching a child for lustful purposes, nine counts of sexual battery, and one count of exploitation of a child, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for change of venue because the motion to change venue was procedurally defective and lacked merit.
(9-0)
Ware v. Ware, 2023-CA-00605-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce action, holding that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion finding that the martial home was a marital asset, in distributing the marital home equally between the parties, or in not making specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each Ferguson factor.
(10-0)
Hasley v. Hasley, 2023-CA-00914-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancellor’s ruling that temporary orders of separate maintenance had been converted to a final order of support, holding that the order being appealed was entered while the case was previously on appeal and that the issue sub judice was encompassed in the Court of Appeals’ prior ruling and remanding for further proceedings.
(8-2-0: Barnes and Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2022-CP-01060-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the pro se plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint after the initial complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity, holding that the proposed amended complaint failed to state a claim for relief.
(10-0)
Pace v. Pace, 2022-CA-01259-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and vacating in part the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce matter related to the sale of a jointly owned commercial building, holding that the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to grant one party’s contempt motion but affirming the chancellor’s decision ordering that party to buy the other party’s interest in the property and denial of the Rule 59 motion.
(10-0)
Jiles v. State, 2023-CP-00383-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the dismissal of several PCR motions, holding that they were time-barred and successive and that and no exceptions applied, and that the remaining arguments were waived because he pleaded or because he did not raise them in the circuit court.
(10-0)
Ware v. Brown, 2023-CA-00663-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of a negligence action for want of prosecution, holding that there was a clear record of delay including two granted motions to compel and a two-year effort to obtain one plaintiff’s relevant medical history, that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint with prejudice in lieu of lesser sanctions.
(5-1(2?)-3(2?): Wilson and Smith concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; joined by McCarty and Smith; Westbrooks did not participate.)
Other Orders
- Patrick v. Patrick, 2021-CA-00891-COA (denying rehearing)
- Okorie v. Nat’l Ass’n Wells Fargo Bank, 2022-CP-00043-COA (denying pro se motion for reconsideration)
- Marshall v. State, 2022-KA-00541-COA (denying rehearing)
- Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (denying motions for reconsideration and for recusal of four judges of the Court of Appeals)
- Hartzog v. State, 2024-TS-00033-COA (denying pro se “motion to show cause” and dismissing appeal)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 