The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions last week and seven this week. You can read summaries of the lot below.
October 22, 2024
Hampton v. State, 2023-KA-00068-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of first-degree murder and using a firearm during the commission of a felony, but vacating the consecutive five-year sentence for using a firearm during the commission of a felony where he was also sentenced to life.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
Baur v. Ribelin, 2023-CA-00018-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming on direct and cross appeal in an adverse possession action, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying the claim for adverse possession or in confirming title in the rightful owner.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; Weddle did not participate)
Johnson v. SW Gaming LLC, 2023-CA-00505-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decisions granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment in an inadequate security case, holding that the evidence was not sufficient to establish an atmosphere of violence or actual or constructive knowledge that the assailant was a violent person and the evidence was not sufficient to establish garden variety negligence.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
In the Interest of A.R.H., a Minor: Malone v. Jackson County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2023-CA-00420-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s custody order, holding that the youth court was in its discretion to find aggravated circumstances warranting bypassing reasonable efforts for reunification and that there were no evidentiary errors.
(5-4: Wilson and Westbrooks dissented without writing; McDonnald dissented, joined by Westbrooks and McCarty)
October 29, 2024
Banks v. Banks, 2023-CA-00515-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Dismissing appeal for want of an appealable judgment.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
Ware v. State, 2023-CP-00909-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming summary denial of PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and successive.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
Morland v. Morland, 2023-CA-00237-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that it was in the child’s best interest to be in the mother’s exclusive custody subject to visitation, in calculation and award of child support to the mother, or in awarding the mother attorney’s fees.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
Mallard v. State, 2023-CP-01155-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the petitioner could not duck the successive petitions bar by proving any exceptions.
(7-1-1: Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing)
Sessums v. Chicken Nugget, Inc., 2023-CA-00128-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a premises liability case where the plaintiff tripped over two parking curbs, holding that the plaintiff did not come forward with evidence to prove that two abutting parking curbs created an unreasonably dangerous condition.
(9-0: Weddle did not participate)
Scott v. State, 2023-KA-00559-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of child abuse and conviction of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for a father who abused his infant child, holding (1) that the admission of the father’s prior conviction for failure to register as a sex offender was not reversible error though it was error to refer to it as “failure to register as a sex offender” instead of “failure to register” which was the actual language in the prior sentencing order, (2) that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, and (3) the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(4-5-0: Wilson and Smith concur in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks, McDonald, and Lawrence concur in result only without writing; Weddle did not participate)
Tisdale v. South Central Regional Medical Center, 2023-CA-00231-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming dismissal for failure prosecute, holding that the trial court did not err in reviewing the motion under Rule 41(b) instead of Rule 37, did not miscalculate the delay and correctly found clear delay with no activity occurring to advance the case to judgment in over two years, and did not abuse its discretion in determining that anything less than a dismissal would be unjust.
(6-3: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Lawrence dissented, joined by McCarty, and joined in part by McDonald)
NOTE – The dissent argued that the majority discounted the impact of COVID.
Other Orders
October 22, 2024
- Weatherly v. Weatherly, 2022-CA-00804-COA (denying rehearing)
- Signaigo v. Grinstead, 2022-CA-01212-COA (denying rehearing)
- Jackson v. State, 2023-KA-00201-COA (denying rehearing)
- Neal v. Cain, 2023-CP-00625-COA (denying rehearing)
- Washington v. State, 2024-CP-00059-COA (granting pro se motion to recall mandate and accept untimely brief)
October 29, 2024
- Wilson v. State, 2023-CA-00070-COA (denying rehearing)
- Shanks v. State, 2023-CP-00271-COA (denying rehearing)
- Davis v. State, 2023-KA-00636-COA (denying rehearing)
- Bradley v. State, 2023-CP-0764-COA (denying rehearing)
Hand Down Page – October 22, 2024
Hand Down Page – October 29, 2024
Mississippi Appeals Blog 