Category: Court of Appeals

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 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., 2021-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 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 Court of Appeals Decisions of July 19, 2022

We are back in action! The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today after their summer break. These cover several appeals from criminal convictions, a termination of parental rights case, and an MTCA case with thorny statute of limitations computation, and PCR.

Bullock v. Mississippi Department of Child Protective Services, 2020-CA-00966-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the judgment of the youth court terminating the plaintiff’s parental rights to her four children, holding that that the youth court’s decision based upon multiple, independently-sufficient statutory grounds was supported by clear and convincing evidence including evidence that one of the children had suffered severe physical, emotional, and mental abuse, and that this abuse of the one child was sufficient to support the termination of parental rights as to all four children. The Court of Appeals also held that there was no evidence that the GAL was unfair or biased.
(10-0)

Alvarado v. State, 2021-KA-00566-COA (Criminal – Felony/First-Degree Murder/Attempted First-Degree Murder)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, holding that the evidence of first-degree murder (that included surveillance footage of the defendant gunning down the victim in a gas station) and evidence of attempted first-degree murder (video showing the defendant exchanging gunfire with a second person after shooting the victim) was sufficient and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Lopez v. State, 2021-CP-00331-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty plead waived the alleged violation of his constitutional rights and that the plaintiff’s claims of ineffective assistance were waived and meritless.
(7-3-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result with separate written opinion, joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Chief Judge Barnes concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in result only with separate written opinion, joined by Chief Judge Barnes.)

Keever v. The Board of Trustees for Mississippi Institutes of Higher Learning, 2021-SA-00036-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA/statute of limitations)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, holding that this, the plaintiff’s second lawsuit asserting an MTCA claim, was not barred by the statute of limitations because the statute of limitations was tolled during the pendency of the first lawsuit that was dismissed without prejudice (from the filing of the complaint to the issuance of the appellate mandate) and for another 95 days after a notice of claim for the second lawsuit was served. The Court of Appeals also held that a “stipulation of voluntary dismissal” of the first complaint after the defendants had filed answers was of no effect, that the complaint could not be dismissed based on the discretionary-function exemption, and that IHL is not entitled to a dismissal at this early stage.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is the timeline of key events, which my brain requires in order to process opinions like this:

  • March 8, 2013 – Alleged injury
  • March 3, 2014 – Plaintiff sent notice of claim
  • March 7, 2014 First Complaint filed (this complaint was dismissed by the circuit court for failure to comply with pre-suit requirements and the dismissal was appealed and affirmed by the MS Court of Appeals)
  • February 6, 2020 – MS Supreme Court denied cert
  • February 18, 2020 – Ineffective “Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal” filed
  • February 18, 2020 – Notice of claim letters sent (this tolled the statute, which was already being tolled during the pendency of the first lawsuit, another 95 days)
  • February 27, 2020 – Appellate mandate issued
  • May 26, 2020 – Second lawsuit filed on the last possible day

And what would stressful, statute of limitations computation party be without the last day falling on a Saturday, followed by a legal holiday?

Garlington v. State, 2020-KA-00392-COA (Criminal – Felony/Sexual Battery)
Affirming the conviction of one count of sexual battery against a minor, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the elements of the crime were proven and to allow the jury to infer that the abuse occurred within the time frame stated in the indictment despite an alleged variance in the dates in the indictment and the proof at trial; there was no error in allowing the minor victim’s out-of-court statements under the tender years exception; no error in allowing the State to amend the indictment; no error in overruling the defendant’s Batson challenges; no error in failing to allow evidence of alleged sexual misconduct of the minor victim’s father; no Confrontation Clause violation by admitting lab results without a witness from the lab testifying at trial; no error in prohibiting Defendant’s expert from referring to certain materials that he had relied upon but had not produced to the State; no error in precluded testimony from Defendant’s would-be character witness; no Brady violation in allowing a rebuttal expert to testify; and there was no error in omitting the time frame of the abuse from the jury instructions setting forth the elements of the crime.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – This is a 58-page, fact-intensive majority opinion.

Jenkins v. State, 2021-KA-00145-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of trafficking at least 1kg of marijuana with intent to sell, holding that that was no Fourth Amendment violation in the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from search warrants for his house and vehicle or his motion and no error in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his bank records even those records were improperly obtained via subpoena duces tecum.
(8-2-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred specially with separate written opinion, joined by Judge McDonald; Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Fluker v. State, 2021-CP-00162-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 28, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today covering a lot of territory without a single dissent. There is an appeal of summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the reversal of summary judgment in an MTCA case, a motion to compel arbitration case, two wills and estates cases, a criminal appeal, and a few PCR cases.

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that though it was not a barred successive motion but that it lacked merit.
(10-0)

Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (Civil – Negligence/Premises Liability/Slip and Fall)
Affirming summary judgment in a premises liability case, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on the issue of breach where the plaintiff slipped in a puddle on the floor of a store but did not know how long it had been there and failed to prove that the store was responsible for the substance or had actual knowledge of the substance on the floor, or that the two minutes the substance had been on the floor gave the store constructive knowledge.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is the meat of the opinion’s reasoning on the constructive notice issue:

Towns v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01364-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding that the County was entitled to “premises immunity” and “weather immunity” under the MTCA in a case where the plaintiff was injured when he drove into a culvert that had washed out, holding (1) that weather immunity did not apply because there was evidence that the County had knowledge that the culvert had deteriorated and thus weather was not the “sole” cause of the culvert washout and (2) that premises immunity did not apply because there was evidence that the condition on the premises was caused by the County.
(10-0) (Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McDonald, and joined by Judge McCarty in Part, urging more objective guidance for reevaluating recanted testimony.)

South Central Heating Inc. v. Clark Construction Inc., 2021-CA-00285-COA (Civil – Contract/Arbitration)
Affirming the circuit court’s order granting arbitration, holding that the moving party did not waive arbitration by including an alternative complaint for damages in the same pleading in which it moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, applying for a default, responding to a motion for summary judgment filed on the arbitration issue, and responding to motion to file a third-party complaint.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Practice Point – The Court of Appeals noted that at every turn the party seeking arbitration asserted and reserved the right to arbitration.

Additionally, if a party lets you off the mat on an entry of default after your answer to their motion to compel arbitration/complaint that they obtained after waiting six week, consider not fighting their motion to compel arbitration tooth-and-nail.

Taylor v. Tolbert, 2021-CA-00900-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Revocation by Destruction)
Affirming the chancery court’s application of the presumption of revocation by destruction, holding that the beneficiary under the will who petitioned to probate a copy of the will had not rebutted the presumption of revocation by destruction by clear and convincing evidence.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (Criminal – Felony/Retroactive Joinder/Character Evidence)
Affirming convictions of aggravated assault, kidnapping, and rape, and conviction as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively, holding that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of retroactive joinder and that the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the admission of character evidence related to prior incidents with the victim. In response to arguments raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was not due a new trial because of actual innocence, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, or ineffective assistance.
(10-0)

Estate of Neill v. Earls, 2021-CA-00177-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s order instructing the executor to revise an “executor’s deed” providing the for the transfer of the decedent’s property, holding that the language of the devise at issue was ambiguous and that the chancellor’s construction of the distribution was not supported by substantial evidence, and further holding that evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the intent of the testator so the case was remanded to allow the parties to provide additional extrinsic evidence of intent.
(9-0) (Judge Lawrence concurred in result only without separate written opinion. Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Wall v. Wall, 2020-CA-01182-COA (denying rehearing)
Pujol v. State, 2022-TS-00024-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely for lack of appealable judgment)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00298-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely for lack of appealable judgment)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 21, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. Trial courts and appellees ran the table getting affirmed in all six cases. The opinions include resolution of appeals related to adverse possession, easements, custody, wrongful termination, PCR, and child support.

Jackson v. Mullins, 2021-CP-00495-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing a three-ring-circus claims filed by a divorcee against the chancery court master who presided over his divorce case, together with a Mississippi Bar employee and the chairman of the Bar’s Committee on Professional Responsibility who handled a bar complaint the plaintiff filed against the special master, and an MDHS employee, holding that the trial judge who granted summary judgment was not biased and that the special master and the Bar personnel were immune from suit.
(10-0.)

Franco v. Ferrill, 2021-CA-00053-COA (Civil – Real Property/Adverse Possession)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a fact-intensive adverse possession suit, holding that the record supported the chancery court’s findings that (1) the plaintiffs adversely possessed the property, (2) the plaintiffs have proved a prescriptive easement to a lake, (3) the plaintiffs were entitled to $5,000 in damages for trespass and property damage, (4) the defendants must remove a fence of pay for fence removal, and (5) a trespass claim filed by one defendant should be denied.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result, joined by Judge Lawrence.)

Stuckey v. Stuckey, 2020-CA-00848-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision modifying a custody agreement, holding that the record supported (1) the chancellor’s determination that there has been an adverse, material change in circumstances; (2) the chancellor’s weighing of the Albright factors to conclude that primary physical custody should be changed from the mother to the father; (3) the chancellor’s decision modification of child support; and (4) the chancellor’s order requiring the mother to undergo quarterly drug testing.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Leland School District v. Brown, 2021-CA-00157-COA (Civil – Contract/Wrongful Termination)
Affirming on direct appeal and cross-appeal the chancellor’s ruling in a wrongful termination claim, holding (1) that the chancellor properly denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, (2) that the chancellor properly found that the school board’s decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious, and (3) that the chancellor did not err in denying attorney’s fees.
(10-0.)

Brumfield v. State, 2020-CP-01271-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff did not meet his burden in challenging the timeliness of his probation revocation hearing.
(10-0.)

Kelley v. Zitzelberger, 2021-CA-00119-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Support/Visitation)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions pertaining to child support and visitation modifications, holding that (1) the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the father’s request for child support reduction or in refusing to enforce the parties’ oral agreement to reduce child support, (2) the chancellor’s decision that the father was not entitled to have voluntary payments for extracurricular activities credited to his child support arrearage was not clearly erroneous, and (3) the chancellor’s decision modifying visitation was not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. The Court of Appeals also denied the mother’s motion for fees and damages under Miss. R. App. 38.
(Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Mingo v. McComb School District, 2020-CA-00022-COA (denying rehearing)
Butler v. State, 2020-KA-00806-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 14, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two opinions today. One addresses a custody award against a backdrop of abuse. The other case involves a remainderman’s claim for damages for timber that was clear cut by the holder of a life estate.

Taylor v. Mississippi Department of Child Protective Services, 2020-CA-01194-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s decision awarding durable legal custody of a child to his paternal grandparents, holding that the youth court complied with section 43-21-557(1)(c) and (e) and did not err in bypassing reunification between the mother and her children where there was proof of abuse.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Breeland v. Turnage, 2021-CA-00698-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision awarding the remainderman damages for timer that was cut from the property by the holder of a life estate, holding that the plaintiff had standing because he owned the land at the time of the lawsuit and his subsequent sale of the land did not disturb standing, that the landowner was entitled to collect damages for the profit obtained by devaluing his interested in the property via clear cut, and that the chancellor did not err in refusing to admit testimony about a witness’s prior conviction because the appellant did not argue any of the exceptions to Rule 404 to the trial court.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Other Orders

Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CA-00728-COA (denying rehearing)

Kreppner v. Kreppner, 2021-CA-00006-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 7, 2022

A deposition took me out of blogging service for most of the afternoon, so a little later than usual I give you summaries of the nine opinions handed down by the Mississippi Court of Appeals. These opinions cover the statute of frauds, trusts, appellate jurisdiction, youth court, authentication of text messages, equitable division and alimony in a divorce case, workers’ comp, PCR, and more.

SEL Business Services, LLC v. Lord, 2021-CA-00368-COA (Civil – Real Property/Statute of Frauds)
Affirming the chancery court’s dismissal of a suit to reclaim property or alternatively for unjust enrichment, holding that a “handshake deal” for the purchase of a building that was sold before that deal came to fruition was subject to the statute of frauds, that the statute of frauds was not satisfied, and that the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment was therefore unavailable.
(All judges concurred.)

Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates/Appellate Procedure/Appellate Jurisdiction)
Granting a motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a case of first impression, holding that the 30-day time period for perfecting an appeal began to run upon the entry of an order adjudicating a claim for attorney’s fees against a trust–not the final judgment terminating the trust.
(All judges concurred.)

Smith v. Adams County Youth Court, 2021-CP-00196-COA (Civil – Juvenile Justice)
Dismissing an appeal of the denial of a minor’s post-disposition motion for modification arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed because the youth court had not been given an opportunity to consider these arguments and any supporting evidence.
(Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Warner v. Warner, 2020-CA-01098-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Valuation/Equitable Division/Alimony/Contempt)
Reversing the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor erred in valuation and equitable division of marital assets, in the award of alimony, and in finding the ex-husband in contempt and awarding attorney’s fees as a result.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (Civil – Felony/Authentication)
Affirming convictions of two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon, holding that there was no plain error with regard to the authentication of text messages and that there was no merit to the claim of ineffective assistance for not objecting to the properly-authenticated text messages.
(Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Carson v. State, 2021-KA-00436-COA (Criminal – Felony/Weight and Sufficiency)
Affirming conviction of possession of cocaine, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying a motion for new trial challenging the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and finding no merit to the defendant’s pro se arguments that his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Confrontation Clause were violated, that the State’s case hinged on “racial profiling,” that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the circuit judge failed to comply with Sharplin.
(All judges concurred.)

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and that the plaintiff failed to raise any claims resulting in the deprivation of his fundamental constitutional rights that would defeat the time bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Reardon v. State, 2020-CP-01259-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the motion was procedurally barred and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, deprivation of fundamental rights, and failure to recuse were without merit.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion. Judge Greenlee and Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Duren v. Effex Management Solutions, LLC, 2021-WC-00337-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the Commission’s ruling, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s decision that the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a permanent disability and the decision to award TTD through the date of MMI, but denying post-MMI medical treatment, prescription, and mileage reimbursements.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

DEEPER DIVE: This case had an interesting post-MMI fact pattern where the claimant was released to return to work without restrictions, was offered to return to work for the Employer at his pre-injury wages, and returned to work there, but then quit working for the Employer due to complaints of pain. Under these facts, the Court of Appeals noted that there was a presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and held that the claimant did not overcome it:

Other Orders

Hammer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (denying rehearing)
Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CA-00847-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 31, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. Topics include the fate of a living trust that included a languishing cattle farm, unemployment benefits, alleged bolstering of the testimony of a minor who was the victim of sexual battery, alleged MDEQ violations by a lessee, and a PCR motion.

Stapp v. Stapp, 2020-CA-01282-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings in an action asking the court to divide the corpus of a living trust or, in the alternative, to make a distribution to the beneficiaries, holding that the chancellor did not err in (1) requiring that all the farm equipment be auctioned because the beneficiaries were not able to run the farm at issue and the farm had not been profitable since their father’s death, (2) requiring $50,000 to be maintained in an account for unforeseen expenses since real property remained in the trust, (3) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for rent and utilities during her occupancy of the farmhouse in the trust and allowing her to live there indefinitely, or (4) not requiring one beneficiary to reimburse the trust for funds she received from cattle sales and not requiring the trust to reimburse the other beneficiary for expenses allegedly incurred for management of the cattle.
(Judge McCarty dissented, arguing that since the documents creating the trusts were not in the record, the trial court modified two trusts without having the terms of the trust or knowing the settlor’s intent.)

Mitchell v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00794-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that the claimant’s work-search requirement was not satisfied and declining to review other arguments that were not supported by citations to any authority.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Note – I understand why appellate courts often handle arguments not supported by citations to authority by stating that they are waived, but then analyzing them anyway and explaining that they are meritless. In this case, it was refreshing to see the Court of Appeals simply hold that the arguments were waived and leave it at that.

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s request to be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Blocton v. State, 2021-KA-00197-COA (Criminal – Felony/Sexual Battery)
Affirming a conviction of sexual battery of a small child, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the victim’s foster mother, the forensic interviewer, and an investigator to testify about what the victim disclosed to them over the defendant’s argument that this testimony improperly bolstered the victim’s testimony and (2) the circuit court did not commit plain error in allowing the investigator to testify and that there was no merit to the defendant’s claim that his lawyer rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Biloxi Dock & Ice, LLC v. Back Bay Fuel and Ice, LLC,  2021-CA-00701-COA (Civil – Contract/Lease)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision upholding the county court’s findings in a case arising out of a lease dispute, holding that the county court, as fact-finder, had sufficient evidence to conclude that the purchaser/landowner failed to establish that the lessee had violated MDEQ regulations that would render the lessee in default of the lease.
(All participating judges concurred.)

NOTE – A lessor in this case was named Lesso. Lesso was sometimes referred to as Lessor in the opinion. Had Lesso been the lessee we could have met calamity.

Other Orders

Lambes v. Lambes, 2020-CA-00095-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 24, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. Today’s offerings include a divorce case, a DUI/marijuana case, a personal injury case, a malicious mischief case, a jurisdiction case with Rule 54(b) claiming more victims, and a handful of PCR cases.

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the circuit court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
(All judges concurred.)

Powell v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 2021-CA-00055-COA (Civil – Real Property/Appellate Jurisdiction/Rule 54(b))
Dismissing appeal of the chancery court’s order dismissing the debtor’s complaint with prejudice and granting the lender’s counterclaim seeking to proceed with a judicial foreclosure, holding that (1) because the counterclaim for judicial foreclosure was still pending the chancery court’s order did not adjudicate all claims against all parties and (2) the chancery court’s order did not contain the certification required by Rule 54(b).
(All judges concurred.)

Klis v. State, 2021-CA-00349-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the motion was time-barred and that his ineffective-assistance of counsel claim did not provide an exception to the bar.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (Criminal – Felony/Jury Instructions)
Affirming conviction of malicious mischief, holding that a jury instruction setting forth the elements of malicious mischief did not constructively amend the indictment because the record failed to show the alleged variance and, in light of the lack of objection by the defendant at trial, there was no plain error by the circuit judge.
(All judges concurred.)

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2020-CP-01135-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Habitual Cruel and Inhuman Treatment)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment of divorce and final judgment regarding division of property and other financial matters, holding that the chancery court did not err in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment which included throwing items, death threats, and behavior that caused the wife’s family to try to get her to seek medical or psychiatric help. Regarding division of property, the Court of Appeals held that the chancery court did not err in dividing the property as the parties had agreed to. The Court of Appeals handled this case graciously, but appropriately noted that the pro se appellant had “waived consideration of the issues she raises on appeal.”
(All judges concurred.)

NOTE – Hiring an attorney to handle your appeal is generally a good idea. Relatedly, if you can’t find one to take your case, it might be a sign. The appellant in this case represented herself and it did not go well. For example:

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that it had no jurisdiction.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff failed to show that he had a procedurally-viable claim or an applicable exception to the procedural bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Borsi v. State, 2021-KM-00643-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor/DUI/Marijuana)
Affirming a conviction of DUI of marijuana, holding that the roadblock that led to the defendant’s arrest was for a proper purpose and conducted consistent with MHP’s general practice so there was no Fourth Amendment violation, that the defendant was not under custodial interrogation when he admitted to smoking marijuana so there was no Miranda violation, that the law was properly applied based upon “influence” rather than “impairment,” and that the trial court (in a bench trial) properly relied upon witness testimony and the evidence presented at trial. The defendant did not leave empty-handed, as the Court of Appeals reversed the assessment of an $85.00 transfer fee by the circuit clerk.
(Chief JUdge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – This is the second opinion in the last few weeks where the defendant argued that he might have partaken of marijuana, but he was not impaired by it. And it is the second opinion where the Court of Appeals has held that “influence” is not synonymous with “impairment” in this context. (The other opinion was Briggs v. State summarized here.)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CA-00214-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Jury Instructions)
Affirming a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff was helping the defendant put up a barbed wire fence and a bungee cord snapped and struck the plaintiff in the eye, holding that (1) a rational jury could have found that there was no master-servant relationship or that the tools provided were reasonably safe and that the defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) the jury was fairly instructed on the issue of proximate causation, (3) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by giving the defendant’s instruction on “simple tools,” (4) submitting four verdict forms was not reversible error, and (5) the fact that defendant offered fifteen instructions did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff.
(All judges concurred.)

Practice Point – Fight jury instructions with jury instructions. If you don’t like something about opposing counsel’s jury instructions, propose one that fixes it:

Other Orders

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-00299-COA (denying rehearing)
Denham v. Denham, 2020-CA-00675-COA (denying rehearing)
Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (denying rehearing)
Miller v. State, 2021-TS-01412-COA (denying motion to reinstate appeal)
Nelson v. State, 2022-TS-00413-COA (denying appellant’s motion to stay appeal and dismissing appeal without prejudice for lack of final judgment

Hand Down List