The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions today. One is a medical malpractice case that ran afoul of RFAs. There are several criminal appeals, a claim against an estate by a judgment-lien holder, several PRC cases including one with competing opinions on Eighth Amendment issues, and more.
Cunningham v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2021-CP-00428-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for judicial review of two ARP requests against MDOC, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to support his appeal and that, in any event, the plaintiff received sentencing credit for his pretrial detention.
(All judges concurred.)
Pickle v. State, 2021-CP-00972-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motions for writ of mandamus, alternative sentencing, and a new trial or for JNOV regarding his 1978 conviction of capital murder and life imprisonment, holding that the motion was untimely, successive, and meritless.
(All judges concurred.)
Thompson v. State, 2020-KA-01279-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of drive-by-shooting that followed a domestic dispute between the defendant, the defendant’s boyfriend, and the defendant’s boyfriend’s ex-wife. The narrative in the opinion is gripping. In short, it was alleged that an Amber alert was issued for the formerly-married couple’s child when the child was with the defendant and her boyfriend (the child’s father). The couple had a physical altercation with the ex-wife at her work place in the midst of which the defendant instructed the ex-wife to “catch me outside.” Later, the ex-wife apparently inadvertently caught the defendant outside while driving and the defendant shot the ex-wife in the arm. A jury convicted the defendant of one count of drive-by-shooting and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the conviction was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the circuit court did not err in allowing the circuit clerk to testify as an authenticating witness even though she was present throughout the trial where the defendant’s counsel did not object, the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposes “mere suspicion” instruction which would have been cumulative, and the defendant’s counsel was not ineffective.
(All judges concurred.)
Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Judgment Liens)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling that claims against the estate were not timely, holding that the judgment liens against the decedent survive the time-bar of probate and were reasonably ascertainable to the executrices of the estate.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)
McLaughlin v. State, 2020-KA-00360-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, third-degree arson, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the evidence was sufficient for each of the convictions, that the defendants was procedurally barred on appeal from raising an alleged Miranda issue and that there was no plain error on this issue, that the circuit court did not err in admitting a photograph of the victim’s brain sitting on the autopsy table to show the bullet path, and that retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
(All judges concurred.)
PRACTICE POINT – Seeking to exclude gruesome photographs of victims in criminal trials is an uphill climb:
Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Requests for Admissions)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendants’ requests for admissions that were deemed admitted, holding that the trial court did not err in deeming the RFAs as admitted–including an admission that the standard of care was not breached–where the plaintiff did not respond until after the defendants filed their MSJ which was more than five months after the RFAs were served. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff could not rely on responses served in a related federal court proceeding.
(All judges concurred.)
MUSING– My experience is that RFAs are rarely used effectively. In the wild, they usually look like a cartoonish attempt to trick the other side. Something like a deadly CAPTCHA test. I think the best use of RFAs is to whittle down and actually define the contours of disputed issues. And, frankly, RFAs are a way to “shake” a lawsuit that is not being prosecuted and just needs to be dismissed.
Jolly v. State, 2021-KA-00318-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of four counts of statutory rape, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement because there was no merit to the defendant’s claims that he lacked capacity to voluntarily waive his rights or that he was coerced into waiving his rights and giving a statement.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)
Hood v. A & A Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2021-CA-00207-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Statute of Limitations/Continuing Tort)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ residential flooding claims against a developer and the operator of a gravel pit based on the statute of limitations, holding that the “discovery rule” did not toll the statute of limitations which began to run upon notice of the injury not the cause of the injury and the “continuing tort doctrine” did not apply where there were no “continual unlawful acts” by the defendants.
(McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence, and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge Smith. Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)
NOTE– I though this was a helpful summary and application of the continuing tort doctrine:
Dortch v. State, 2021-CP-00103-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PCR motion and motion to vacate judgment and finding no error in the circuit’s revocation of the plaintiff’s PRS.
(All judges concurred.)
Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion related to the plaintiff’s 2011 conviction of felony evasion and sentence to life without parole as a habitual offender (with eight prior felony convictions), holding that the Eighth Amendment claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and without merit and that the circuit court did not err in refusing to consider mitigating circumstances surrounding Skinner’s juvenile convictions.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Westbrook, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)
NOTE – The majority and the dissenting opinions contain robust discussions of the Eight Amendment analysis.
Other Order
Tallent v. State, 2020-CP-01077-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 
One thought on “Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 17, 2022”