Madison Taylor

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 23, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is an arbitration enforcement decision, a legal malpractice settlement enforcement decision, an appeal of a second-degree murder conviction, a wrongful termination decision, and a PCR decision.

Chandler v. State, 2020-CP-01060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that most of the claims were procedurally barred and all of them were without merit.
(10-0)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the court court’s order granting in part a motion to compel arbitration, holding (1) that the circuit court did not err in granting arbitration to those plaintiffs whose attorney contracts had an arbitration provision, holding that the defendants did not waive arbitration under the peculiar facts of this case even though the motion to compel arbitration was not heard for more than five years, (2) that the plaintiffs had not specifically and clearly alleged fraudulent inducement, (3) that it was not error to compel arbitration over the plaintiffs’ argument that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty and that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and (4) that it was not error to apply the arbitration provision to conduct that occurred before it was executed.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming the circuit court’s order enforcing a settlement release signed by a former client agreeing to release malpractice claims against a law firm for $300,000 and ordering the law firm to pay the $288,000 balance, holding that the settlement release was not barred by the statute of frauds, that the amount bargained was not unreasonable, that facts deemed admitted to requests for admissions that were not answered were conclusively established, that the law firm waived its defenses to the legal malpractice claim by negotiating a release, and that there was no requirement to file a suggestion of death.
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – These facts are wild and the opinion is worth you time. A non-lawyer employee lied to the plaintiff about filing suit and a trial date and the plaintiff only found out eight years later. The plaintiff negotiated with the same non-lawyer employee and received $18,000 and later a promise for $288,000 more, but the law firm did not sent a release. Litigation ensued over the agreement. Sadly, the plaintiff died of cancer during the litigation and did not get to see things made right.

Moffett v. State, 2021-KA-00622-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that (1) the defendant did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to request a culpable-negligence instruction, failure to request an accident or misfortune instruction, or for admitting that there was no evidentiary basis for a heat-of-passion manslaughter jury instruction; (2) the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress her statement on coercion grounds; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion.)

Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the University Personnel Action Review Board’s (PARB) decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination, holding that (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction; (2) the plaintiff was afforded due process despite her arguments that she was not given proper notice, not provided with adequate reasons for her termination prior to her hearing, not given the PARB’s findings of fact, and the investigation was inadequate; (3) the termination did not violate the First Amendment; and (4) the termination was supported by substantial evidence including evidence of disrespectful and confrontational behavior towards coworkers.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (denying rehearing)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (denying rehearing)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (denying rehearing)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (recalling mandate so appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 18, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion today along with a passel of orders denying various post-conviction petitions as frivolous. The opinion is noteworthy because the Supreme Court granted cert and then reversed the Court of Appeals and the chancery court on issues that do not appear to have been argued at any point in the appeal briefing and were not addressed by the Court of Appeals.

Randle v. Randle, 2020-CT-00433-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and the chancellor on cert, holding that the lower courts incorrectly considered settlement proceeds from a wrongful-death claim as an asset of the estate and incorrectly adjudicated the decedent’s heirs-at-law instead of making a determination of wrongful-death beneficiaries.
(9-0)

ADDENDUM – The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on issues that were not addressed by the parties’ briefs, the Court of Appeals’ opinion, or the cert petition. The parties were focused on issues related to the use of DNA evidence to determine heirs and the chancellor’s order requiring a supersedeas bond which are the issues the Court of Appeals decided. But the Supreme Court addressed a more fundamental issue of whether the wrongful-death proceeds were part of the decedent’s estate. Since it held they were not, the Supreme Court then held that the chancellor should have determined wrongful-death beneficiaries rather than heirs-at-law. This case was remanded back to the chancery court for a determination of wrongful-death beneficiaries.

Here is the Supreme Court emphatically explaining that wrongful-death proceeds are not part of the decedent’s estate:

Other Orders

Pinkston v. State, 2012-M-00306 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the claims in the successive petitions are frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)

Daniels v. State, 2017-M-00423 (denying petition for PCR, finding that it was frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Brunson v. State, 2018-M-01113 (denying petition for PCR, finding that it was frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Hill v. State, 2019-M-01221 (denying denying pro se petition for en banc habeas corpus, finding the claims in the successive petitions are frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)

Wright v. State, 2019-M-01883 (denying petition for PCR, finding that it was frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Brown v. State, 2020-M-00630 (denying motion to proceed with habeas corpus petition, finding that the application was frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing applications in forma pauperis)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 16, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There are three criminal cases that address jury instructions, improper prosecutorial argument, and the admissibility of a letter aimed at the credibility of a State’s witness. There is also a divorce case addressing issues several issues related to alimony, a case deciding whether the right to arbitration was waived, a case seeking to impose a constructive trust on land, and an unemployment case.

Vector Transportation Co. v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00574-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court and MDES Board of Review’s finding that the claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the circuit court’s determination that the employer failed to prove that the claimant was discharged for misconduct was not contrary to law, arbitrary or capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence.
(9-0: Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Clay v. State, 2021-KA-00790-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of uttering a forgery and sentence as a nonviolent habitual offender, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s mistake-of-fact jury instruction considering all jury instructions read together.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Murry v. State, 2020-KA-01363-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding (1) that that the prosecutor made an improper “send-a-message” argument during closing but that absent the prosecutor’s improper argument the jury would have found the defendant guilty and (2) that the circuit court did not commit plain error in admitting photographs that the defendant did not object to. The Court of Appeals also declined to decide the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and recognized that it was preserved for PCR.
(10-0)

NOTE – Here are the “send-a-message” comments that the Court of Appeals held “[w]ithout question . . . run afoul of the clear direction given by the highest appellate courts in our state and nation” and that the defendant’s attorney did not object to at trial:

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00736-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of conspiracy and armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding a letter the defendant sought to introduce that accused a witness of past instances of false accusations because it was hearsay and did not fall within an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Phang v. Phang, 2021-CA-00752-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part several aspects of the chancery court’s judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor (1) did not err in the award of permanent alimony, (2) erred in not specifying what happened to the alimony obligation if the ex-husband predeceased the ex-wife, (3) erred in requiring the ex-husband to maintain an excessive life insurance policy naming the ex-wife as the beneficiary, (4) erred in ordering the ex-husband to provide annual proof of income to his ex-wife.
(10-0)

White v. White, 2021-CP-00333-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s dismissal of a son’s complaint against his mother seeking damages and to impose a constructive trust on land he had deeded his mother, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations but did err to the extent it dismissed the claim to recover and impose a constructive trust because the 10-year statute of limitations had not run on those claims when the complaint was filed.
(10-0)

Note – There was a lengthy footnote to remand declaration, discussing the odd situation presented where the Court of Appeals was remanding to the Harrison County Circuit Court a claim seeking to impose a trust on land located in Pike and Lincoln County.

Purvis v. Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, 2021-CA-00039-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant did not waive arbitration by refusing the plaintiff’s pre-suit arbitration demand or by filing a counterclaim contemporaneously with its motion to compel arbitration and holding that the arbitration provision requiring an arbitration demand within 120 days after notice of a claim did not and could not alter the three-year statute of limitations.
(6-1-2: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge McDonald and joined in part by Judge McCarty; Judge Smith did not participate.)

Other Orders

Wofford v. State, 2020-KA-01341-COA (denying rehearing)

Adams v. State, 2020-KA-01383-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-SA-00020-COA (denying rehearing)

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (denying rehearing)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00259-COA (denying rehearing)

Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 11, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three unanimous opinions today. The lone civil case is an interlocutory appeal of a slip-and-fall case. The other two are criminal cases, one affirmed a conviction and the other reversed a conviction based on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

Byram Cafe Group, LLC v. Tucker, 2021-IA-00723-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the record including the plaintiffs’ deposition testimony did not support their claim that the defendant created a dangerous condition or that the defendant’s negligence caused the fall.
(9-0)

Garrett v. State, 2021-KA-00754-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of burglary of a hotel room, holding that the defendant did not meet his burden on appeal of showing that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence or that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming evidence.
(9-0)

Green v. State, 2021-KA-00617-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing convictions of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, and burglary of a dwelling, holding that the circuit court erred by admitting evidence that the defendant possessed the victim’s car keys (the “linchpin evidence” supporting the convictions) that was wholly derived from the defendant’s statement that the circuit court had excluded because it was improperly induced.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Clark v. State, 2019-DP-00689-SCT (rehearing denied)

Durrant Inc. v. Lee County, Mississippi, 2019-CT-01826-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 9, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is one decision that turns on an appellate procedure issue, a workers’ comp decision, a real property decision addressing the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law when a request was made under Rule 52, and two PCR cases.

Jones v. State, 2021-CP-01088-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion because it was barred as a successive motion and time-barred, holding that the plaintiff did not show that these bars did not apply to his claim.
(10-0)

Townsend v. State, 2021-CP-01091-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff had waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim when he pleaded guilty, that the indictment was not facially defective, that a pre-sentence report was not required, that the plaintiff’s due process rights were not violated because of his guilty plea, and that the plaintiff’s rights were not violated for sentencing him as a habitual offender.
(10-0)

Thompson v. AAA Cooper Transportation, 2021-CP-00658-COA (Civil – Property Damage)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment dismissing an appeal from county court for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that because the appellant failed to file a notice of appeal and pay the cost bond within the time provided he had not timely perfected his appeal.
(10-0)

Darty v. Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Authority, 2021-WC-00986-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision denying the claimant’s motion to reinstate his claim as time-barred, holding that the claimant’s failure to timely request review of the AJ’s dismissal of the claim due to the claimant’s failure to respond to a status request barred the claim.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This result is not as harsh as it seems from this short summary. The status request was issued on January 24, 2017, which was apparently more than a year after prehearing statements were filed. The order of dismissal for failing to respond to the status request was entered on March 2, 2017. The twenty days to file a written request for review of that order passed, and then another three years passed before the claimant hired a new attorney who filed a motion to reinstate the claim.

Rebuild America, Inc. v. Colomb, 2021 –CA-00213-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment that had affirmed both the county court’s dismissal of an action for unlawful entry and detainer and denial of the plaintiff’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that the county court committed reversible error when it did not provide findings of fact and conclusions of law after a request was made under Miss. R. Civ. P. 52.
(4-2-4: Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Carlton, and Judge Wilson, and in part by Judge McDonald)

NOTE – Today’s unanimity streak was shattered in dramatic fashion with this decision. The disagreement between the majority and the dissent that interests me the most is whether Rule 52 applies at all. The majority held that it does and reversed because the county court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law when it was asked to. The dissent argues in a footnote that Rule 52 does not apply:

Rule 52 states:

Maybe the dissent will bolster a cert petition and the Mississippi Supreme Court will weigh-in on this issue.

Other Orders

Beale v. State, 2020-KA-00614-COA (denying rehearing)

Devine v. Cardinal Health 110, LLC, 2020-CA-01101-COA (denying rehearing)

Thompson v. State, 2020-CP-01236-COA (denying rehearing)

Stribling v. Youth Court of Washington County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-00007-COA (dismissing appeal sua sponte for lack of appealable judgment)

Porras v. State, 2021-CP-00052-COA (denying rehearing)

Barnes v. State, 2021-KA-00404-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 4, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today and in both it reversed the Court of Appeals. One involves a judgment lienholder’s plight after a tax sale of which it was not given notice. The other is an appellate procedure case addressing whether there was a final, appealable order.

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in suit to conform and quiet title, holding that in this case where a home builder obtained and enrolled a judgment against the property owners for an unpaid construction balance, the property was sold at a tax sale and then sold again, that no legal authority required notice of the tax sale to the home builder/judgment lienholder prior to the expiration of the two-year redemption period and that the chancery clerk had no duty to conduct a search of the judgment roll. Judgment was rendered in favor of the purchaser.
(6-0: Chief Justice Randolph, Justice Beam, and Justice Griffis did not participate)

OVERRULE ALERT – This decision overruled at least two prior decisions where it was held that equity allowed for an extension of the two-year, statutory redemption period because such decisions run afoul of the Mississippi Constitution which gives the Legislature the exclusive right to set the conditions for redemption:

Humphrey v. Holts, 2021-CT-00046-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order, holding that the chancery court’s order dismissing the complaint upon the motion of one of two defendants left no claims to be adjudicated and it was therefore a final, appealable judgment.
(9-0: Justice King specially concurred, joined by Justice Kitchens)

PRACTICE POINT – Mississippi’s appellate courts dismiss a significant number of appeals for lack of final, appealable judgment by strictly applying Miss. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This opinion does not reference Rule 54(b) but it appears that the chancellor’s order in this case did not contain the magic words in 54(b). The Supreme Court essentially held that 54(b) did not apply here because the chancellor’s order disposed of the entire complaint (i.e. it did not dispute of fewer than all claims/parties) so the magic words were not required. My takeaway: When Rule 54(b) applies it must be strictly complied with, but don’t assume it applies.

In Re: Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education, 89-R-99011-SCT (Order appointing Helen Morris, Marcus A. McLelland, and Katherine K. Farese to three-year terms as members of the Commission on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education effective August 1, 2022)

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (Order authorizing and directing the disbursement of $15,000.00 from the Court’s Judicial System Operation Fund to the Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules for its necessary work through September 30, 2022)

City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (denying rehearing)

Nelson v. State, 2020-M-01417 (denying application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court filed pro se and warning petitioner against further frivolous filings)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2022-AD-00001-SCT (En banc order directing the disbursement of $177,295.27 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 2, 2022

In five opinions handed down today, the Mississippi Court of Appeals tackled implied trusts, trespass to timber, hearsay exceptions, and more.

Bays v. State, 2021-KA-00244-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of one count of sexual battery by a person in a position of trust or authority, holding that it was error to admit testimony containing a hearsay statement by the 12-year-old victim under the 801(d)(1)(C) statement of identification hearsay exception but that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the guilty verdict and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely request to submit evidence of another perpetrator or in denying the defendant’s request to re-call the victim.
(9-1-0: no separate opinion)

Ainsworth v. Plunk, 2021-CA-00488-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s order requiring a father to transfer title of real property back to his two daughters, holding that the chancery court properly applied the remedy of an implied trust under the peculiar facts of this case where (1) the father deeded land to his daughters and reserved a life estate for himself prior to his upcoming marriage in case the marriage ended in divorce, which it did, (2) the father then told the daughters to deed the land back to him and he would execute a new deed where the daughters would be tenants in common with full rights to devise their half interest, (3) the daughters quitclaimed their interest back to the father, (4) and the father then said he would only deed back the land if one of the daughters gave up an African-American baby she had adopted.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

NOTE – In addition to its startling facts that would make a compelling movie, this opinion contains a helpful discussion of constructive trusts and resulting trusts, and the differences between the two that would not necessarily make a compelling movie.

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a wrongful death action against an employer stemming from a fatal collision involving its employee, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence because the employee was driving home from a week at a remote job site in a personal vehicle when the accident occurred and thus was not in the course and scope of his employment.
(10-0)

NOTES – The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in declining to apply the workers’ comp “traveling employee doctrine” outside of the workers’ comp arena. Additionally, the Court of Appeals dropped this handy paragraph to cite when the opposing party’s argument relies on out-of-state authorities:

(Please disregard this if I am ever the opposing party citing out-of-state authorities.)

Nalls v. State, 2021-KA-00592-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for JNOV because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and then rejecting several arguments made in the defendant’s additional, pro se brief.
(10-0)

Green v. Poirrier Properties, L.L.C., 202 1 -CP-00704-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a timber-trespass case, holding that the chancellor’s finding that the defendant’s removal of timber constituted a willful act and the chancellor’s award of damages were supported by substantial evidence.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

Other Orders

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (denying rehearing)

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (denying rehearing)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of July 28, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One untangles a web of statutes governing sixteenth section land to determine whether a noncustodial school district could recover past revenue from the custodial school district. The other considered whether a conviction in a second trial violated double jeopardy after the first trial ended in a mistrial.

Wayne County School District v. Quitman School District, 2020-CA-00499-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing and rendering on direct appeal and affirming on cross-appeal in a dispute between to school districts about whether revenue generated from sixteenth section land received by the custodial district should have been shared with the noncustodial district, holding that the noncustodial district could not recover past revenue that might have been owed because the noncustodial district did not satisfy Section 29-3-119(4) which places a time limit on when a noncustodial district can make a claim with a custodial district.
(6-3: Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice King.)

NOTE – This opinion takes a deep dive to interpret the statutes governing revenue generated by sixteenth section land. At stake was $1,101,413 in funds that the Wayne County School District collected and kept, but that the Quitman School District but could have had a claim to. Here is the Supreme Court’s conclusion:

Wilson v. State, 2021-KA-00473-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that double jeopardy was not violated because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found manifest necessity for a mistrial when the defendant’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the defense referenced the victim was incarcerated during opening and holding that the the weight of the evidence was such that allowing the verdict to stand was not an unconscionable injustice.
(7-2: Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens.)

Other Orders

Jackson v. State, 2014-M-00623 (denying petition for PCR and restricting the plaintiff from filing further PCR applications in forma pauperis)

Ladner v. State, 2020-CT-00299-SCT (denying cert)

Dew v. Harris, 2020-CT-01261-SCT (denying cert)

Kirk v. State, 2022-M-00044 (denying petition for PCR and restricting the plaintiff from filing further PCR applications in forma pauperis)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 26, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals was short on opinions and long on “housekeeping” orders today. There were two opinions affirming criminal convictions and one chancery matter dealing with division of marital assets, alimony, and custody/visitation. One of the criminal appellants made a scrappy argument that Covid deprived him of due process during his trial.

Boyd v. State, 2021-KA-00066-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault stemming from a marijuana deal that went off the rails, holding that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel amounting to a violation of constitutional rights and that review of the record showed affirmatively that his ineffective assistance claims were without merit. The meritless issues raised involved the lack of a request for a jury instruction regarding imperfect self-defense manslaughter, the lack of objection to an investigator’s testimony regarding Facebook messages and the admission of those messages as exhibits, the lack of objection to the State’s cross-examination of the defendant regarding text messages, and the lack of objection to comments by the prosecutor during closing.
(9-1-0)

Walker v. State, 2021-KA-00483-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery, holding that the evidence was sufficient even without “physical or scientific” evidence, that there was no due process violation in holding trial during the Covid pandemic, that the defendant was procedurally barred from arguing prosecutorial misconduct because he cited no evidence to support it, that there was no error in admitting testimony of two investigators, and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the prosecutor reading only a portion of a jury instruction during closing.
(10-0)

ADDENDUM – COVID and the Law: The defendant argued that fear of Covid created an urgency among the jurors that prevented them from faithfully discharging their sworn duties. This argument failed for want of evidence:

Garner v. Garner, 2021-CA-00038-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s awards following an irreconcilable differences divorce between an OB/GYN and her husband, rejecting the ex-husband’s arguments on appeal and holding that his award of 48% of the martial property was the product of a proper Ferguson analysis, that there was no error awarding him rehabilitative alimony in lieu of more “accessible cash,” and that chancellor properly applied the Albright factors in awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother.
(9-1-0)

Other Orders

McGee v. Neel Schaffer Engineers and Planners Inc., 2020-CA-01277-COA (denying rehearing)

Magee v. State, 2020-KA-01378-COA (denying rehearing)

Haynes v. State, 2020-KA-01397-COA (denying rehearing)

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (recalling mandate and accepting motion for rehearing as timely)

Jones v. State, 2021-KA-01263-COA (dismissing motion to dismiss appeal as untimely and granting appellant’s motion to proceed out-of-time)

Lawrence v. State, 2021-TS-01324-COA (granting appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal)

Wilson v. State, 2022-TS-00268-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)

Harrell v. State, 2022-TS-00276-COA (denying appellant’s pro se motion to reinstate appeal)

Rice v. State, 2022-TS-00400-COA (affirming circuit court’s judgment)

Gutierrez v. State, 2022-TS-00459-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of July 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today after its two-week break. This eclectic array of cases covers a refused jury instructions on the right to stand your ground, medical malpractice, an election contest, a real property purchase, and a request by the AG to be heard on a nonexistent request for litigation expenses.

Williams v. State, 2021-KA-00336-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Self Defense)
Reversing manslaughter conviction in a case where the defendant killed her father by stabbing him during an altercation he initiated, holding that the trial court erroneously refused the defendant’s proposed jury instructions related to her right to stand her ground.
(9-0)

NOTE – Instructions that the defendant had a right to defend herself were held insufficient. Here are the two instructions that the trial court erred by refusing:

Taylor v. Premier Women’s Health, PLLC, 2021-CA-00493-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming judgment for the defendants following a unanimous jury verdict for the defendants in a med mal case, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant challenges for cause of jurors who were patients of the defendant doctor and did not err in denying the plaintiff’s motion for JNOV that sought a finding that there was a breach of the standard of care.
(8-0: Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

Simmons v. Town of Goodman, 2021-EC-00563-SCT (Civil – Election Contest)
Affirming trial court’s decision upholding the municipal election commission’s finding that the plaintiff did not qualify to run for mayor, holding that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that he was domiciled in Goodman for the amount of time statutorily required to run for mayor.
(9-0)

SRHS Ambulatory Services, Inc. v. Pinehaven Group, LLC, 2020-CA-01355-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant/seller of real property and its title insurance carrier, holding that the plaintiff’s purchase of real property was valid and enforceable because ratification of the purchase by the county board of supervisors was not required.
(5-1-3: Justice King concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Maxwell.)

Garcia v. State, 2021-IA-00632-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction)
Vacating the trial court’s order granting the Attorney General’s “Motion for Notice of and an Opportunity to Be Heard on Requests for Litigation Expenses,” holding that the AG’s request was not only premature, but inapplicable because the defendant was represented by attorneys working for the Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel who are employed by the state and do not receive compensation or expenses for representing the defendant.
(9-0)

Hand Down List