The Court of Appeals handed down six opinions yesterday. There was one direct criminal appeal, a statute of frauds/equitable estoppel case, an equitable distribution case, and three PCR cases.
Beckworth v. Beckworth, 2022-CA-00048-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancery court’s ruling in a dispute between siblings over the ownership of a home, holding that the brother who had been evicted by the sister failed to prove the elements of equitable estoppel and therefore he could not get past the statute of frauds.
(10-0)
NOTE – I like this statement on credibility calls:
Cleveland v. State, 2021-CA-01130-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary denial of a motion for PCR, holding that the petitioner’s first claim was meritless and his second claim was time-barred.
(10-0)
Rutledge v. State, 2022-CP-00513-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that the claim on appeal was procedurally barred because the petitioner sought to challenge the validity of the conviction but had not presented that issue to the trial court.
(10-0)
Johnson v. Johnson, 2021-CA-01080-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s findings on remand for application of the Ferguson factors to equitable distribution, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion by awarding her lump-sum alimony or 45% of his military pension, but sua sponte addressing an incorrect calculation of the percentage of military survivors benefits awarded and reversing/rendering on that issue.
(10-0)
Jackson v. State, 2022-CP-00325-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to obtain permission from the Supreme Court.
(10-0)
McClusky v. State, 2022-KA-00115-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of fondling, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce testimony of prior abuse to show lack of mistake or in allowing the state to question the defendant about pornographic material on his cell phone for impeachment purposes.
(10-0)
Other Order
Clark v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, 2021-CA_00173-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 