Happy New Year! The Mississippi Court of Appeals wasted no time getting back in the game this year and handed down two opinions today. One is a direct appeal of a criminal conviction of multiple counts of video voyeurism and the other is a decision on unusual facts from hearings related to the enforcement of a judgment.
Moore v. State, 2022-KA-00327-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of fifteen counts of video voyeurism and one count of video voyeurism of a child under sixteen, holding that the trial court did not err in declining to suppress all of the State’s evidence because “simple mistakes made in the process of the issuance of the two search warrants” related to identifying which suite the subject restroom was in; that the evidence was sufficient to find that the incidental recording of males was “lewd, licentious, or indecent” and that the evidence was sufficient to prove the necessary element of lack of permission as to the victims who did not testify. (10-0)
Pierce v. Sorrells, 2022-CP-01290-COA (Civil – Contract) Affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court’s decisions on dueling petitions to unseal a judgment (by obligee) and to set the judgment aside (by obligor), holding that the obligor was served with process on the petition to unseal, but holding that the obligor’s due process rights were violated when he was instructed by the court not to open his mouth again before he was able to testify and remanding for full hearing on the merits, and reversing the trial court’s judgment ordering the obligor incarcerated until he purged himself of contempt. (6-1-3: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Lawrence and Smith, and joined in part by McCarty.)
NOTE – Here is the potion of the opinion recounting the hearing:
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today and one order approving local rules. There is a direct criminal appeal, a legal malpractice case before the supreme court on a forum-selection issue, and a contract/judgment case.The court’s cert denying machine is also humming along, with six cert petitions denied and none granted today.
Mills v. State, 2022-KA-00617-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting photographs of the accident scene, photos of the victims wounds, or footage from the responding officer’s body camera, and holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (9-0)
Breal v. The Downs Law Group, 2023-CA-00132-SCT (Civil – Legal Malpractice) Reversing the trial court’s sua sponte enforcement of a forum-selection clause and dismissal of a legal malpractice claim, holding that forum-selection concerns venue and may be waived, and that “venue had clearly been waived” after one year of litigation. (9-0)
Bhana v. Patel, 2022-IA-01264-SCT (Civil – Contract) Reversing the chancery court’s renewal of a judgment on a loan, holding that the chancery court abused its discretion because the original judgment expired and the plaintiff failed to renew the judgment in any manner provided by law and that the defendant’s “slight delay in asserting a statute of limitations defense was neither substantial nor unreasonable.” (8-1-0: Randolph concurred in result only without writing)
Other Orders
In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting motion for approval of local rule filed by circuit court judges for the first circuit court district)
Clayton v. State, 2021-CT-00505-SCT (denying cert)
Williamson v. State, 2021-CT-00830-SCT (denying cert)
McInnis Elec. Co. v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC, 2021-CA-01115-SCT (consolidated with 2021-CA-01300) (denying rehearing)
Holliday v. State, 2022-CT-00149-SCT (denying cert)
Applewhite v. State, 2022-CT-00290-SCT (denying cert)
Rhodes v. RL Stratton Props. LLC, 2022-CT-00338-SCT (denying cert)
Carter v. PERS, 2022-CT-00383-SCT (denying cert)
River Oaks Hospital, LLC v. Thompson, 2023-M-00481-SCT (denying interloc)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight decisions on Tuesday that cover a lot of territory. There is something for just about everybody.
Read on down for a case that underscores the importance of keeping up with the weekly hand downs from the Mississippi Supreme Court and Mississippi Court of Appeals. (Subscribing to this blog probably doesn’t hurt you in that endeavor.)
Coogan v. Nationwide Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 2022-CA-01063-COA (Civil – Insurance) Affirming partial summary judgment in policy holders’ suit against their auto liability carrier, holding that the carrier had an arguably reasonable basis to support its claims handling the circuit court did not err in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the bad faith punitive damages claim or the Veasley damages claim. (6-2-1: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing, Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing, McDonald dissented without writing, Lawrence did not participate)
Forrest v. State, 2022-KA-00844-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the court did not admit inadmissible hearsay or irrelevant evidence, and dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claim without prejudice. (10-0)
Hills v. Manns, 2022-CA-00774-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming modification of visitation schedule, holding that the chancellor did not err in not dismissing the mother’s petition on the basis of res judicata, not awarding him attorney’s fees, or in awarding the mother final decision-making authority. (10-0)
Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc., 2022-CA-01240-COA (Civil – Personal Injury) Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit on judicial estoppel grounds, holding that the case should be remanded to allow the circuit court to apply the test from a recent Mississippi Supreme Court decision that was handed down after the circuit court’s ruling. (10-0)
PRACTICE POINT – This case illustrates the importance of keeping up with decisions handed down weekly by Mississippi’s appellate courts. (By extension, this case illustrates why you and all of your friends should subscribe to the Mississippi Appeals Blog – I covered the Saunders decision here when it was handed down.)
PRACTICE POINT (continued): Though the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Saunders was handed down after the summary judgment order was entered, the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones, infra, with its special concurrence, was handed down before the summary judgment proceedings. So the precedential special concurrence in Jones that controlled this case was in force during the summary judgment proceedings. This case serves as a good reminder that special concurrences that garner a majority of the court have the force of precedent. (Another shameless plug: I covered the Jones decision here when it was handed down and specifically discussed the precedential value of the special concurrence.)
Barefield v. Barefield, 2022-CA-00834-COA (Civil – Torts-Other) Affirming the chancellor’s order requiring the former member/owner of an investment company to pay a forensic accountant’s fee for services during litigation among all members/owners, holding that the exert was court-appointed and the chancellor had discretion to order the party whose actions necessitated the lawsuit to pay the fees. (8-2-0: McCarty concurred in part and in result without writing; Wilson concurred in result only without writing)
Henderson v. State, 2022-KA-00661-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. (10-0)
Nichols v. State, 2022-KA-00202-COA (Criminal – Felony) Reversing conviction of first-degree murder and remanding for new trial, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the “castle doctrine,” while also holding that the evidence to support the conviction was legally sufficient so the remedy was a new trial. (10-0)
Miss. Dept. of Human Servs. v. Johnson, 2022-SA-00605-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming the chancellor’s decision voiding a 2002 paternity and child-support order was void for insufficient service of process, holding that in light of MDHS’s admission that failed to effect proper service under Rule 81(d) MDHS’s arguments under the doctrine of laches, judicial estoppel, unjust enrichment, and public policy failed. (6-4: Greenlee dissented, joined by Wilson, Lawrence, and Emfinger)
Other Orders
Gillen v. Gillen, 2021-CA-00837-COA (granting motion for appellate attorneys’ fees)
Moore v. State, 2022-KA-00327-COA (granting appearance as counsel, but denying motion to substitute and motion to file supplemental brief)
Diming v. State, 2022-KA-00412-COA (recalling mandate and granting motion for time to file motion for rehearing)
Russell v. State, 2022-KA-00447-COA (recalling mandate and granting motion for time to file motion for rehearing)
Greater Hamilton Grove Baptist Church v. Hamilton Grove Missionary Baptist Church, 2022-CA-00518-COA (denying rehearing)
Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. v. Williams, 2023-WC-00453-COA (denying motion for reconsideration)
Mitchell v. State, 2023-TS-00764-COA (granting motion to proceed out-of-time)
Robinson v. State, 2023-TS-00935-COA (dismissing untimely appeal)
Britton v. State, 2023-TS-01060-COA (dismissing untimely appeal)
Rutherford v. State, 2023-TS-01066-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)
Rutherford v. State, 2023-TS-01069-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion on Thursday. It was a 5-4 split over whether the petitioner who was sentenced to mandatory life without parole as a minor before Miller had a statutory right to be resentenced by a jury.
Dampier v. State, 2021-CT-00280-SCT (Civil – PCR) Affirming sentence of life without parole after the trial could conducted a hearing and considered the Miller factors, holding that there was no statutory right to be resentenced by a jury under section 99-19-101(1) under the facts of this case. (5-4: Coleman dissented, joined by Kitchens, King, and Ishee)
NOTE – The majority provided some procedural clarification:
The dissent took issue with the fact that a jury had never weighed the applicable statutory aggravating and mitigating factors:
Other Orders
Manning v. State, 95-DP-00066-SCT (holding State’s motion to lift stay of execution, set execution date, and dismissing second successive PCR motion in abeyance until the Court rules on the petitioner’s motion for leave to file successive petition for PCR)
Galloway v. State, 2013-DR-01796 (denying motion to stay mandate pending cert; denying rehearing)
Parisie v. State, 2017-M-00685 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court pro se, finding the filing was frivolous, and waning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)
S.F. v. Lamar Cnty. Dept. of Child Protection Servs., 2021-CA-00466-SCT (denying rehearing)
Lewis v. State, 2021-CT-00472-SCT (denying cert)
Renfroe v. Parker, 2021-CT-01048-SCT (denying cert)
Herbert v. Herbert, 2021-CT-01291-SCT (dismissing cert petition)
Tran v. State, 2022-CT-00094-SCT (denying cert)
Wells v. State, 2022-CT-00157-SCT (denying cert)
Z.E.F. v. Lamar Cnty. Dept. of Child Protection Servs., 2022-CA-00695-SCT (denying rehearing)
Sanders v. Reeves, 2022-CT-01059-SCT (denying cert)
Madakasira v. Irby, 2023-M-00604-SCT (denying petition for interlocutory appeal)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. There is a case addressing a county’s decisions regarding license and tax exception, an appeal of the denial of a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation to regain the right to possess firearms, and a direct criminal appeal that resulted in a 5-4 decision.
Stokes v. Jackson Sales & Storage Company, 2022-CA-00371-SCT (Civil -Other) Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s rulings in a licensing and tax dispute, holding the company’s license is and has been valid since issuance, the license is subject to renewal, the County forfeited its right to taxes during the years it had granted an exemption, and the County had discretion to grant (or not grant) the exemption. (9-0)
Francis v. State, 2022-CA-00964-SCT (Civil – Other) Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation to restore the right to possess a firearm after felony conviction, holding that the denial of a certificate of rehabilitation is an appealable order, but that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the certificate and that no hearing was required. (9-0)
Gunn v. State, 2022-KA-00807-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and shooting into a dwelling, holding that the trial court did not err by granting a jury instruction allowing an inference of deliberate design and that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. (5-4: Coleman dissented, joined by Kitchens, King, and Ishee)
Note – Here is what the majority said about the jury instruction at issue:
And here is the dissent’s conclusion:
Other Orders
Miller v. Board of Trustees of Second Baptist Church of Starkville, 2020-CT-01384-SCT (denying cert)
Kirk v. Newton, 2021-CT-00684-SCT (denying cert)
Durr v. State, 2021-CT-01109-SCT (granting cert)
Parker v. Canton Manor, 2022-CT-00206-SCT (denied cert)
Francis v. State, 2022-CA-00964-SCT (denying motion to dismiss appeal)
Wilson v. State, 2023-M-00633 (denying application for leave to file PCR motion, finding that the filing is frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There are two domestic cases (custody and divorce), an appeal of summary judgment, a real property/arbitration case, and a PCR case.
Scott v. Boudreau, 2022-CA-00961-COA (Civil – Custody) Affirming judgment modifying custody and awarding the father custody, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the Albright factors and awarding custody to the father which required relocating the children. (8-1-1: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing, McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing)
Malone v. State, 2022-CP-00958-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that the petitioner entered his guilty plea voluntarily and the circuit court did not err on the issue of competency where the circuit court made an on-the-record determination of competency and that the petitioner’s attorney’s performance was not deficient. (7-3-0: Wilson, Westbrooks, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
MDL Community Development, LLC v. Dillon, 2022-CA-00802-COA (Civil – Real Property) Affirming the chancellor’s decision withdrawing an order and reiterating a prior order compelling arbitration, holding that the chancellor had subject matter jurisdiction over the land-contract dispute and retaind jurisdiction to enforce an arbitration decision, if any. (10-0)
Cannon v. Cannon, 2022-CA-00410-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s grant of divorce and related matters, holding the chancellor did not err in granting divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment or in finding that the proceeds from the sale of the ex-wife’s separate home were converted to marital property, but holding that the chancellor erred in determining that the ex-husband’s real estate business was separate non-martial property. (9-1-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Jarrell v. Coastal Ear, Nose & Throat, Head and Neck Surgery Association, PLLC, 2022-CA-00910-COA (Civil – Other) Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s wrongful discharge claim, holding that the circuit court did not err in striking parts of the plaintiff’s affidavit that contained hearsay, lacked foundation, and were speculative statements, and that the plaintiff did not establish that the whistleblower exception to at-will employment could apply here. (8-2-0: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Other Orders
Rawlings v. Rawlings, 2022-CA-00919-COA (denying motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions on Tuesday. There are some interesting opinions in there including three opinions with civil procedure issues that civil litigators should take a look at. One deals with the discovery rule and the savings statute after a voluntary dismissal, another deals with a Rule 41 dismissal for want of prosecution, and the other deals with a Rule 56(f) motion in a med mal case.
The Supreme Court will not hand down decisions this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Burns v. BancorpSouth Bank, 2022-CA-00404-COA (Civil – Contract) Affirming dismissal of breach of contract and negligence claims that two banks were liable for not preventing an elderly lady’s caregiver from stealing money from bank accounts, holding that the claims against the banks were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. (8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee did not participate)
Harper v. State, 2022-KA-00659-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of attempted statutory rape and fondling, holding that the trial court did not err by admitting the victim’s out-of-court statements without determining whether the tender-years exception applied because the victim’s teacher’s testimony about what the victim said was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and that the forensic interviewing expert’s testimony did not constitute hearsay, and dismissing the ineffective assistance of counsel claims without prejudice. (8-2-0: Enfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing and McDonald concurred in the result only without writing)
Agee v. State, 2022-KA-00994-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the Court did not err by imposing restitution and that the defendant waived that issue by not objecting during sentencing. (9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in the result only without writing)
Clearman v. Pipestone Property Services, LLC, 2022-CA-00651-COA (Civil – Personal injury) Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of slip-and-fall claims against a contractor and subcontractor who provided snow and ice removal services for a grocery store on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the “discovery rule” did not apply, the voluntary dismissal of a timely federal court lawsuit against the grocery store did not bring the claims against the contractor and subcontractor within the ambit of the “savings statute,” and the doctrine of equitable tolling did not apply. (10-0)
Galvan v. State, 2022-KA-00655-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of statutory rape, sexual battery, gratification of lust, and incest, holding that the trial court did not err by not appointing an interpreter or by admitting the defendant’s statements to law enforcement, that the defendant waived objections based on the Confrontation Clause, that there was sufficient evidence to support the incest conviction, and that the defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. (9-1-0: Carlton concurred in result only without writing)
Rawlings v. Rawlings, 2022-CA-00919-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the ex-wife’s request for attorney’s fees after denying the ex-husband’s request for alimony modification, holding that she was not entitled to attorney’s fees under the marital dissolution agreement providing that the prevailing party in an enforcement action was entitled to attorney’s fees because this was an action to “modify” the agreement not “enforce” it. (10-0)
Scott v. UnitedHealthcare of Mississippi, Inc., 2022-CA-00963-COA (Civil – Insurance) Affirming dismissal for want of prosecution where an 18-month period of inactivity followed the filing of the compliant, interrupted only by some activity prompted by the circuit clerk’s notice of intent to dismiss under Rule 41, that then followed by another 18-month period of inactivity and a second Rule 41 notice, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case even though the plaintiff filed a “Motion to Leave Case on the Docket” after the second Rule 41 notice and that the Court otherwise had inherent power to dismiss for want of prosecution. (8-2-0: McDonald and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
NOTE – The Court was not persuaded by the plaintiff’s efforts to assign blame to the COVID pandemic. The plaintiff argued:
The Court addressed this argument later in the opinion:
Hogan v. Hattiesburg Clinic, P.A., 2022-CA-00650-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice) Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ 56(f) motion filed the day before the motion for summary judgment hearing, holding that the plaintiffs’ 56(f) motion did not mention the need to obtain additional expert medical opinions and the plaintiffs had not otherwise shown that additional expert opinion could establish proximate cause. (8-1-0: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Carlton did not participate.)
Other Orders
Love v. State, 2021-CP-01101-COA (denying rehearing)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a lengthy personal jurisdiction case, a direct criminal appeal, a circuit vs. chancery jurisdiction dispute, and a death-penalty PCR decision.
K&C Logistics, LLC v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 2022-CA-00939-SCT (Civil – Other) Affirming judgment of the circuit court finding no personal jurisdiction in a negligence case stemming from a car wreck in Arizona, holding that the Mississippi Business Corporation Act did not confer personal jurisdiction by virtue of the foreign corporation being registered to do business in Mississippi and that the defendant did not waive the personal jurisdiction defense when its attorneys entered appearances that did not expressly reserve the right to assert the personal jurisdiction defense. (9-0)
Practice Point – This decision has a lengthy discussion of personal jurisdiction that is worth your time to read. On the waiver issue, the Court clarified persistent confusion over “special appearances” as follows:
Lollis v. State, 2022-KA-00711-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict on both counts. (9-0)
Riverhills Capital Corporation v. At Home Care, Inc., 2022-IA-00568-SCT (Civil – Contract) Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a motion to transfer a breach of contract, fraud, and quite title claim to chancery court, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded legal claims the circuit court did not err in denying the request to transfer to chancery court even if it is a “close call” and if the legal claims were ultimately found to be without merit. (9-0)
Note – The Supreme Court said this about circuit court jurisdiction:
Bennett v. State, 2021-CA-01313-SCT (Civil – Death Penalty – PCR) Affirming the denial of a PCR petition, holding that Cronic did not apply and there was no per se ineffective assistance, that the trial court’s refusal to allow the petitioner to depose two proffered witnesses did not affect the outcome of the trial, and that the petitioner failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel. (9-0)
Other Orders
Smith v. State, 2021-CT-01003-SCT (granting cert)
Dawson v. Burgs, 2021-CT-01038-SCT (denying cert)
Baker v. State, 2021-CT-01277-SCT (denying cert)
McFarland v. State, 2021-CT-01311-SCT (denying cert)
Fagan v. Faulkner, 2022-CT-00130-SCT (granting cert)
The Mississippi Bar v. Hessler, 2023-BD-00057-SCT (granting emergency motion to clarify opinion to clarify that Hessler is authorized to continue practicing law in Mississippi while his one-year-and-a-day suspension remains in deferred status) *The “motion to clarify” is a handy item to keep in one’s tool belt. It was used here to get a result that had a significant impact on the movant.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. They cover custody, personal injury, felonies, and PCR. One of the personal injury cases stems from an injury sustained during a “TikTok challenge” in a classroom.
Croom v. State, 2022-KA-00598-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling and conspiracy to commit burglary of a dwelling, holding that the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of trespass and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction of conspiracy. (9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion)
Snyder v. Estate of Cockrell, 2022-CA-00597-COA (Civil – Torts) Affirming summary judgment in a negligence case a man filed against his grandfather’s estate after a child caused the grandfather’s golf cart to run into the plaintiff, holding that in the plaintiff could not prove a breach of duty where there was only speculation about the grandfather’s conduct after he finished operating the golf cart. (8-2-0: McDonald concurred in part and in result without written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in result only with separate written opinion)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CP-01186-COA (Civil – PCR) Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the petitioner failed to present evidence other than his bare assertions that his plea was involuntary and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the petitioner an evidentiary hearing. (10-0)
Scott v. Le, 2022-CA-00887-COA (Civil – Custody) Affirming the chancellor’s custody award, holding that the chancellor’s finding that there was a material change in circumstances and the chancellor’s application of the Albright factors to to deny the mother’s request for sole physical custody and grant the father’s request for sole physical custody was supported by substantial evidence. (10-0)
Taylor v. State, 2022-KA-01042-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of attempted murder and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, holding that evidence of prior arrests did not constitute evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(a) because it was offered as the foundation of a witness’s identification of the defendant and that would have been otherwise admissible under the exception in 404(b), that it passed the 403 balancing and, even if it was not admissible, it would have been harmless error. (9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Brown v. State, 2022-KA-00446-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and shooting into a vehicle, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, that the defendant waived the issue of the judge’s refusal of a second-degree murder instruction when trial counsel did not object and agreed with the judge’s decision, and there was no merit to the claim that a clinical and forensic psychological expert was pressured into proceeding with an independent psychological examination without all of the records he had requested. (10-0)
Bumpous v. Tishomingo County School District, 2022-CA-01010-COA (Civil – Personal Injury) Affirming summary judgment in favor of the school district in a negligent supervision after a student was injured in a class room after falling victim to a “TikTok challenge,” holding that that the injury was not reasonable foreseeable and there was no genuine issue of material fact that would warrant reversal of the summary judgment. (6-2-2: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without written opinion; McCarty dissented, joined by Carlton, and joined in part by Westbrooks and McDonald)
Other Orders
Smith v. State, 2026-KA-01946-COA (denying pro se motion to recall mandate and allow untimely motion for rehearing)
Hall v. State, 2022-CP-01097-COA (recalling mandate and allowing appellant’s timely pro se motion for rehearing to proceed on the merits)
McGee v. State, 2023-KA-00083-COA (remanding to the circuit court for forty-five days for a hearing consistent with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 6(c)(2) and an order)
Patton v. State, 2023-TS-00618-COA (allowing timely appeal to proceed on the Court’s own motion)
Crump v. State, 2023-TS-00795-COA (allowing timely appeal to proceed on the Court’s own motion)
I too have noticed that I have been falling behind in summarizing weekly decisions. The Mississippi Supreme Court was pretty quite these last two weeks, so I have combined them into one post. Read to the end for a significant PCR decision.
November 2, 2023
Lamy v. Lamy, 2021-CT-00770-SCT (dismissing cert on the Court’s own motion)
Estate of Bell v. Estate of Bell, 2021-CT-00789-SCT (denying cert)
Everett v. State, 2021-CT-01385-SCT (denying cert)
November 9, 2023
Hathorne v. State, 2021-CT-00306-SCT (Civil – PCR) Reversing the circuit court’s denial of PCR motion and the decision of the court of appeals affirming the denial, holding that the indictment was defective, that the challenge to the substantive sufficiency of the indictment could not be waived and thus was not procedurally barred, and therefore reversing the conviction and sentence and rendered judgment dismissing the indictment. (8-0: Randolph did not participate)
NOTE – This case is a big deal. Here is now the Supreme Court wrapped up its opinion:
Other Orders
Godbolt v. State, 2020-DP-00440-SCT (denying motion to make oral arguments)
McCollum v. State, 2021-KA-01276-SCT (denying rehearing)
McDowell v. State, 2021-CT-01381-SCT (granting cert)
Powers v. State, 2023-DR-00895-SCT (denying the State’s Motion to Strike Stephen Elliot Powers’s First Supplement to Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the State’s Motion to Strike Powers’s Motion for Access to Jurors and Disclosure of Documents)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 