Decisions – Mississippi Appeals Blog

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 27, 2026

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions yesterday. One was a direct criminal appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The other was a more novel case determining the applicability of COVID-related immunity under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-71-7 in a med mal case.

White v. State, 2025-KA-00596-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming two convictions of first-degree murder, holding that the jury verdicts were supported by sufficient evidence.
(8-0: Branning for the Court)

Bush v. Marion General Hospital, 2025-CA-00246-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Reversing the circuit court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a med mal case, holding that the plaintiff’s alleged medical negligence claims were not attributable to the COVID-19 state of emergency rendering the immunity provision of section 11-71-7 inapplicable.
(5-2: Griffis for the Court; Coleman dissented, joined by Branning; Randolph did not participate)

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline of the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (appointing or reappointing the following six persons to three-year terms as members of the complaint tribunals effective September 1, 2026: Seth T. Curren, Hon. Carol White-Richard, Hon. Jennifer F. Nicaud, Hon. T. Michael Reed, Robert R. Morris, and Leo J. Carmody)
Latham v. State, 2024-CT-00719-SCT (denying cert)
Lovern v. State, 2024-CT-01449-SCT (denying cert)
Burdine v. State, 2025-CT-00154-SCT (denying cert)
Hudson v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2025-CA-00645-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of August 6, 2026

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down seven decisions yesterday. It was an eventful day with three med mal cases (one under the MTCA), a real property case, two direct criminal appeals (one death penalty case), and a public employment termination case. Of these seven cases, there were four reversals including two on cert. There is a noteworthy special concurrence in the MTCA case that garnered a majority of the votes which, in that case, was four out of six participating votes. I would be remiss if I did not also note the appearance of a concurrence dubitante.

Johnson v. Cleveland, 2023-CT-01011-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the judgment of the circuit court on cert, holding that the plaintiff has standing to assert her adverse possession claim.
(4-1-2: Coleman for the Court; Randolph concurred dubitante; Brannning dissented, joined by Griffis; Wilson did not participate)

Upchurch v. Lewis, 2023-CT-01296-SCT, consolidated with Lewis v. Upchurch, No. 2024-CT-00396-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the judgment of the circuit court on cert, holding that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants and that the circuit court therefore did not err in denying the motion for JNOV and new trial.
(7-0: Griffis for the Court)

University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Carter, 2024-IA-00038-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the MTCA statute of limitations on interlocutory appeal, holding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by the discovery rule.
(5-4*-0: Branning for the court; *Coleman specially concurred, joined by Ishee, Griffis, and Branning; Randolph and Wilson did not participate)

Practice Point – Coleman’s special concurrence garnered the support of three fellow justices giving it a total of four votes. With the addition of Judge Celeste Embry Wilson to the Court, we are now up to are eight justices. But neither Justice Wilson nor Chief Justice Randolph participated in this case. That means that the special concurrence received four of the six votes in the case. In other words, a majority. Here is the conclusion of the special concurrence.

The special concurrence did not say it did overrule Barnes and Caves and hold that there is no discovery rule under the MTCA, but that it would. Justice King and Justice Sullivan did not join the special concurrence. It looks like all it would take in the next case is Chief Justice Randolph, newly appointed Justice Wilson, or the yet-to-be-appointed ninth justice to get on board with the special concurrence’s position to bring that change to fruition.

Brown v. Davey-Sullivan, 2024-CA-00693-SCT (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming the circuit courts grant of summary judgment in a medical malpractice case, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce the required expert testimony to establish a triable claim.
(6-1: Griffis for the Court; Coleman dissented; Wilson did not participate)

Heard v. State, 2024-DP-00802-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming capital-murder conviction and death sentence, holding that the trial court did not commit plain error by admitting certain testimony, that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be denied without prejudice; that the trial court did not err by allowing a lay witness to give certain opinions; that the trial court did not err in excluding a character witness’s opinion testimony about the defendant’s truthfulness; that the trial court did not err by failing to make a reliability determination about testimony regarding a software program used to extract information from cell phones; that the sentence was not constitutionally disproportionate; that the trial court did not err by giving a sentencing instruction regarding heinous atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstances because it was supported by sufficient evidence; that the death sentence was not unconstitutional, cruel, and unusual punishment; and that section 99-19-105(3) is not applicable.
(7-0: Griffis for the Court; Wilson did not participate)

Coahoma County School District Board of Education v. Moore, 2024-IA-01316-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the county court’s denial of summary judgment for the school board, holding that the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid compensation under theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were foreclosed by the minutes rule.
(6-1: Branning for the court; Coleman dissented; Wilson did not participate)

Bozard v. State, 2025-KA-00393-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felony evasion, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
(7-0: Randolph for the Court)

Other Orders

Mississippi Bar v. Owens, 2026-BD-00754-SCT (accepting Jody E. Owens’s resignation with prejudice from the Mississippi Bar, and such resignation shall be tantamount to proof of guilt on the matter charged, and ordering that Jody E. Owens II is hereby immediately and permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi)
In Re: The Mississippi Access to Justice Commission, 89-R-99032-SCT (appointing or reappointing the following Commissioners of the Mississippi Access to Justice Commission for terms ending on June 30, 2029: Justice Leslie King; Mary Purvis; Judge Richard “Wes” Ryals, II; Catherine Servati; Patrick Bryan; Chancellor E. Vincent Davis; and Representative Justis Gibbs, and thanking the following outgoing Commissioners for their dedicated service: David Calder; Dan Hall; and Judge Denise Owens.)
Gray v. State, 2023-CT-01270-SCT (denying cert)
Williams v. State, 2024-CT-00257-SCT (denying cert)
Brown v. State, 2024-CT-00489-SCT (denying cert)
White v. State, 2024-CT-00658-SCT (denying cert)
Norman v. State, 2024-CT-01107-SCT (Denying cert)
Winn v. State, 2024-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)

In The Matter Of: The Application of Mollie Parsons Sells for Recognition Under The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 4025a, 2025-M-00821 (granting Petition for Limited Order Authorizing the Board of Bar Admissions to Grant Application for Admission to Practice Law Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. § 4025a)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 28, 2026

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down twelve opinions yesterday. One of my cases was in the mix which always derails my focus for the day. That is my excuse for the delay. Among the opinions are several direct criminal appeals, a workers’ comp case, a premises liability case, and two dismissals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. My case survived a jurisdictional challenge and then turned on whether the chancery court erred in deciding that a probated claim stemming from a divorce judgment was satisfied.

Greater New Hamilton Grove Baptist Church v. Hamilton Grove Missionary Baptist Church, 2025-CA-01008-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Dismissing the appeal of an order dissolving a preliminary injunction in an interment dispute, holding that the issue was moot and the court was without jurisdiction.
(10-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court)

Ajinomoto Foods North America v. Christy Moore, 2025-WC-01107-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision, finding that the claimant suffered a total occupational loss of use in both hands and work-related osteoarthritis and awarding permanent total disability benefits, holding that the commission did not err in applying the Jensen presumption and that its decision that the osteoarthritis was compensable was based on substantial credible evidence.
(10-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court)

Wilson v. State, 2024-KA-00725-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felonious child abuse, holding that the issue of whether cross-examination was limited in violation of the defendant’s due process rights was procedurally barred, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in precluding certain testimony, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying a motion for mistrial after the State defied instructions not to introduce youth court rulings, that argument regarding the trial court not precluding evidence about false confessions was procedurally barred and without merit, that the trial court does not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
(8-2-0: Emfinger for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Walley v. State, 2024-KA-01443-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of uttering forgery and identity theft, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the introduction of some evidence and limiting cross-examination about a prior indictment.
(9-1-0: Lawrence for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing)

C.D.M. v. Lee County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2024-CP-01427-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the youth court’s decision terminating parental rights, holding that the youth court’s decision was based on sufficient evidence. (9-1-0: Wilson for the Court; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Gallion v. State, 2025-KA-00061-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of manslaughter, holding that the trial court properly sustained an objection to prosecutorial misconduct and that further arguments on that issue were waived for failure to request a contemporary jury instruction or to move for mistrial, that a hearsay objection should have been sustained but was harmless error, those arguments regarding police officer opinion testimony was waived, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that it was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Wilson for the Court)

Brown v. State, 2024-KA-01376-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a Batson challenge or in denying a motion to sever the two counts.
(8-1-1: Carlton for the Court; McCarty concurred and result only without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing)

Strawn v. Southern Roots Salon & Day Spa, LLC, 2025-CA-00429-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant in the premises liability case, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of it.
(8-2-0: Carlton for the court; Wilson and McDonald concurred in part and in result without writing)

Garfield v. Tate, 2025-CA-00104-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Dismissing the appeal of the entry of a chancery court’s final judgment disinheriting a party in a wrongful death case, holding that it was not an order, much less a final appealable order that would confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeals.
(10-0: Barnes for the court)

Wilson v. State, 2024-CA-00686-COA (Civil-PCR)
Vacating and remanding the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the indictment was void for failure to charge the defendant with crimes cognizable under Mississippi law.
(4-3-3: Barnes for the court; Wilson specially concurred, joined by Emfinger and Weddle, and joined in part by Lawrence and Lassitter St. Pe’; McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton and Lassitter St. Pe’ and joined in part by Lawrence)

Jones Family Medicine Clinic, PLLC, v. McCallum, 2024-CA-01332-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the county court’s grant of summary judgment in a breach of contract case, holding that it was error to dismiss the complaint based on the waived affirmative defense of unconscionability.
(6-1-3: Weddle for the court; Westbrooks concurred in part in the result without writing; McDonald dissented without writing; Lawrence dissented, joined by Barnes and McDonald and joined in part by Westbrooks)

In the Matter of the Estate of Pace: Pace v. Philips, 2025-CA-00223-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancery court’s finding that a probated claim arising from the decedent’s violation of property settlement agreement incorporated into a judgment of divorce had been satisfied, holding that the final disposition of a probated claim was a final appealable order notwithstanding ongoing litigation in the estate matter and that the chancellor failed to grant a proper remedy for the violation of the PSA/judgment of divorce.
(8-2: McCarty for the court; Barnes dissented, joined by Carlton)

Disclosure: I represented the appellant in this case.

Other Orders

Leggett v. State, 2024-CP-01214-COA (denying rehearing)
Howard v. State, 2025-KA-00171-COA (recalling mandate and allowing the appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing to proceed as timely filed)
Morris v. State, 2026- TS-00276-COA (denying appellant’s pro se motion to reconsider dismissal of his untimely appeal)

Hand Down Page

A Special Thanksgiving Edition of the Mississippi Appeals Blog

Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours from the Mississippi Appeals Blog! To mark the occasion, I did a little research and found a suitable throwback decision from the Mississippi Supreme Court to summarize for you.

Old Ladies Home Ass’n v. Hall, 52 So. 2d 650 (Miss. 1951) (Civil – Contracts)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision overruling special and general demurrers asserted by residual beneficiaries in an action brought by a devisee to enforce a contract between himself and the testatrix wherein the testatrix (an elderly widow at the time) agreed to devise her property to him if he would move his family into her home and provide her with room and board (which he did), holding that the bill of complaint was sufficient and that the statute of limitations began to run when the testatrix died, not when things went south due to the lack of butter at Thanksgiving dinner:

Complainant charged that, in fulfillment of the contract, he and his family lived in Mrs. Douglas’ residence, that he paid taxes on it and repaired it from time to time, and furnished her and her foster daughter with suitable and acceptable board and food, heat and lights and other comforts and necessities, until Thanksgiving Day of November, 1943, at which time Mrs. Douglas became enraged about complainant’s failure to have butter on the table, and ordered complainant and his family to get out of the house. It was averred that Mrs. Douglas at all times kept two loaded pistols and a dagger in her home, and threatened physical violence to complainant’s infant son and that complainant feared for the safety of himself and his family. Complainant told her that he wanted to remain in the home and carry out his part of the contract, as he had previously done, and as he thereafter remained ready, willing and able to do, but Mrs. Douglas drove them from her home and refused complainant’s services.

PRACTICE POINT – As we are not presently in the throes of World War II, there is really no excuse to run out of butter on Thanksgiving.

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of March 7, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions last Thursday. There is an appeal of the dismissal of an MTCA claim on summary judgment, an appeal of a Medicaid reimbursement-rate decision, and an appeal by a victorious pro se party. The headliner, however, is the appeal of Willie Godbolt’s convictions for the infamous 2017 shooting of eight people in Lincoln County.

Federinko v. Forrest County, Mississippi, 2023-CA-00204-SCT (Civil – MTCA)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege a tortious or negligent act with respect to the MTCA defendants’ decision not to conduct an autopsy or obtain postmortem blood and fluids.
(9-0)

Mississippi Division of Medicaid v. Women’s Pavilion of South Mississippi, PLLC, 2023-SA-00098-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision vacating Medicaid’s reimbursement-rate decision, holding that the administrative officer did not have to defer to Medicaid’s initial decision but was to make findings of fact and a determination of the issues presented.
(8-0: Beam did not participate)

Stratton v. McKey, 2023-CP-00451-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the pro se plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion to vacate a judgment in his favor that awarded him possession of his classic truck and monetary damages.
(9-0)

Godbolt v. State, 2020-DP-00440-SCT (Criminal – Death Penalty – Direct Appeal)
Affirming conviction of four counts of capital murder, four counts of first-degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, one count of attempted murder, and one count of armed robbery garnering four death sentences, six life sentences, and two twenty-year terms, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to server; (2) transferring venue to a neighboring county (with a jury drawn from a distant county); (3) “limiting” voir dire where the process lasted four days and produced nearly 800-pages of transcript; (4) denying a motion to suppress statements made to media and law enforcement; (5) denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the defendant’s home, vehicle, cell phone, other electronic devices; (6) allowing the defendant’s wife to testify under Rule 601(b)(2); (7) admitting evidence of prior bad acts; (8) admitting 911 calls; (9) not ordering a psychiatric evaluation that the defendant opposed; (10) admitting Facebook messages over an authentication objection; (11) only allowing the defendant (who exercised his right not to testify) limited time for allocution during closing arguments; (12) denying motion to exclude victim impact evidence; and the Supreme Court also (13) deferred the ineffective assistance claim to the PCR phase; (14) held that there was no Brady violation regarding the destruction of the defendant’s phone after all data and information from the phone were given to the defendant; (15) that the defendant’s right to an impartial jury was not violated; (16) held that there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; (17) that the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” aggravator was not unconstitutional; (18) that the death penalty was not unconstitutional; (19) that the death penalty was not disproportional; (20) and that there was no error, so the cumulative error argument was without merit.
(7-2: King dissented, joined by Kitchens)

NOTE– You should never treat my summaries as a substitute for reading cases that you intend to rely on. This is especially true in a case like this one. This is probably the longest summary I have posted, but I have only scratched the surface.

Other Orders

Love v. State, 2021-CT-01101-SCT (granting pro se cert petition)

Norwood v. Smith, 2021-IA-01404-SCT (dismissing interlocutory appeal)

Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. v. Williams, 2023-CT-00453-SCT (denying in part and dismissing in part petition for cert and reverse and stay of mandate or in the alternative petition for interlocutory appeal)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 8, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down to five opinions today. One wades into a contingency-fee contract dispute, one is a statutory interpretation case involving the bond for appeals by former public school employees, one addresses the admissibility of a defendant’s lay testimony that he suffers from PTSD, and two are related to Bar disciplinary proceedings.

Gilmer v. McRae, 2021-CA-00028-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint stemming from a dispute over a contingency fee arrangement and its award of attorney’s fees, holding that the defendant’s attorneys (who were also defendants) were immune from suit as they were acting in their capacity as attorneys, there was no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees against the plaintiff, and there was no abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff’s amended motion to amend.
(9-0)

Greenville Public School District v. Thomas, 2021-IA-00456-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming on interlocutory appeal the chancellor’s decision setting the bond for an appeal by a former public school district employee, holding that section 37-9-113(2) does not require a bond to cover the cost of the transcript and that there was no abuse of discretion in setting the bond at the statutory minimum of $200.
(8-1-0: Justice Ishee concurred in part and and in the result)

Bland v. State, 2021-KA-00973-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding the defendant’s lay testimony claiming he suffered from PTSD.
(5-4-0: Justice Kitchen concurred in part and in the result, joined by Justice King, Justice Coleman, and Justice Ishee–this concurrence opined that the exclusion was error but that the error was harmless)

Louvier v. The Mississippi Bar, 2022-BR-00205-SCT (Civil – Bar Matters)
Granting reinstatement over the Bar’s opposition.
(9-0)

The Mississippi Bar v. Petty, 2022-BD-00402-SCT (Civil – Bar Matters)
Ordering public reprimand and payment of the Bar’s costs.
(9-0)

Other Orders

In Re: Advisory Committee on Rules, 89-R-99016-SCT (appointing or reappointing members of the Advisory Committee on Rules)

Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CT-00781-SCT (denying cert where COA affirmed summary judgment for defendant in slip and fall case as summarized here) [*Corrected link]

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 25, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. There are four criminal cases including one with an interesting issue that arose when only eleven jurors were polled about the verdict. There is also a termination of parental rights case and a PCR case.

Braziel v. State, 2021-KA-00603-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and in the absence of a pro se brief, holding that there were no arguable issues on appeal.
(9-0: Judge Smith did not participate.)

C.P. v. Lowndes County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2019-CA-01739-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision terminating parental rights of both natural parents, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination and that reunification efforts were not required, that the GAL’s efforts were “suboptimal” but harmless because there was other sufficient evidence, that it was error to not inform the parents of their rights at the outset of the bearing but it was harmless since the parents were represented and exercised their rights, and that the court did not commit reversible error adopting CPS’s proposed order verbatim without specific findings of fact.
(6-4-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Maye v. State, 2020-KA-00100-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by refusing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction where the defendant denied killing the victim and there was no evidence to support the instruction and holding that there was no error in admitting a gruesome photo that had probative value.
(6-3: Judge McDonald and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

O’Quinn v. State, 2021-KA-00534-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of armed robbery, holding that there was no merit to the defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple instance of hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

ASIDE – The opinion provides a colorful description of events that unfolded in the parking lot immediately after the robbery. It reads like a scene from Raising Arizona, complete with a two-year-old in the getaway car. Here is a portion:

Price v. State, 2019-KA-01890-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and possession of a firearm by a felony, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the overwhelming evidence, that the defendant could not complaint on appeal about the denial of a motion he opposed at trial, that ineffective assistance claims were denied without prejudice, that the defendant waived arguments that the trial judge should have recused, that there was no error in several jury-related issues including the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors that was cured by retroactively polling the juror at an evidentiary hearing order by the Court of Appeals.
(7-3: Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and joined as to Parts I and II by Judge McCarty. The dissent took issue with the notion that the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors could be cured on remand by a supplemental hearing.)

Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR)
Denying motion for rehearing, withdrawing original opinion, and substituting this modified opinion affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff was procedurally barred by res judicata and without merit and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider evidence of a potential defense for the plaintiff’s 1994 conviction in sentencing him for his 2011 felony evasion.
(5-4: Judge McCarty concurred in part dissented in part; Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, and Judge Westbrooks, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Other Orders

Ford v. State, 2020-KA-00278-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Garlington v. State, 2020-KA-00392-COA (denying rehearing)
Towns v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01364-COA (denying rehearing)
Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (denying rehearing)
Robinson v. State, 2021-CP-01215-COA (dismissing appeal as moot)

Hand Down List