Tag: Appellate Jurisdiction

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 4, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions yesterday. The most interesting is technically an adoption case, but it involves jurisdictional issues, unwritten local chancery court rules, appellate procedure, and appellate remedies. Both the majority opinion and the partial concurrence/partial dissent are worth your time.

Wiggins v. Southern Securities Group, LLC, 2024-CA-00251-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s decision in a contract/business dispute, holding that the trial court did not err in granting one side’s motion for preliminary injunction or in denying the other side’s motion to compel mediation and/or arbitration.
(8-1: Griffis for the Court; Coleman dissented)

In the Matter of L.L.T.: Prince v. Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services, 2024-IA-00824-SCT (Civil – Adoption)
Affirming the youth court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to finalize an adoption against a backdrop of the chancery court refusing set a hearing on adoption petitions, holding that the youth court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction since chancery courts have exclusive jurisdiction.
(5-4: Coleman for the Court; Randolph dissented, joined by Ishee, Griffis, and Branning)

Note – The procedural posture of this one is strange as a result of the chancery court refusing to set a hearing on adoption petitions. The petitioner got creative and initiated the youth court action to create a record for an appeal so that they could seek relief from the appellate courts. The youth court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and the petitioner was able to appeal. On appeal, the majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the youth court lacked jurisdiction but held that they could not provide any relief other than to affirm the youth court because no other relief was specifically sought. The Supreme Court made it clear that the chancery court should act, but found that it lacked a mechanism based on the issue presented on appeal to compel the chancery court to act. Here is how the majority opinion concluded:

The partial concurrence/partial dissent agreed that the youth court lacked jurisdiction, but was less diplomatic about the chancery court’s conduct and disagreed that Supreme Court’s hands are tied on this appeal:

Other Orders

  • McGee v. State, 2023-CT-00083-SCT (denying cert)
  • Childs v. State, 2023-CT-00126-SCT (denying cert)
  • In the Matter of Estate of Johnson: Manners v. Estate of Johnson, 2023-CT-00823-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • McNaughton v. State, 2023-CT-01099-SCT (denying cert)
  • Caffey v. Forrest Health, 2023-CT-01232-SCT (denying cert)
  • Carr v. State, 2024-CT-00185-SCT (denying cert)
  • Horne v. Dolgencorp LLC, 2024-CT-00376-SCT (denying cert)
  • Strong v. Acara Solutions, Inc., 2024-CT-00455-SCT (granting cert)
  • Rogers v. State, 2025-M-00257 (granting application for leave to proceed in the trial court)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 22, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions today. These opinions cover personal injury, felonies, unauthorized practice of law, appellate jurisdiction, contract, and more. You can read my summaries below.

Varnado v. State, 2024-KA-00338-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of seven counts of sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony under the Tender Years Exception, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to ask a victim leading questions on direct, and that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for new trial or JNOV challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.
(10-0: St. Pe’ for the Court)

Singh v. Singh, 2024-CA-00646-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s reversal of the county court in a garnishment dispute, holding that the county court’s decision granting a stay of garnishment was not supported by the evidence.
(9-0: St. Pe’ for the Court; Westbrooks did not participate)

Owens v. Boyd Biloxi LLC, 2024-CA-00330-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of water’s presence on the floor.
(10-0: Weddle for the Court)

Brown v. State, 2024-CA-00307-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the petition seeking permission to file an appeal nearly 15 years after conviction was time-barred and not subject to exceptions.
(9-0: McCarty for the Court; Weddle did not participate)

Quilantan v. State, 2024-CP-00357-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that there was no merit to the claim based on the absence of a PSI report, ineffective assistance of counsel, or failure to provide a certified interpreter.
(9-0: McDonald for the Court; Emfinger did not participate)

Williams v. Williams, 2023-CA-00992-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Dismissing appeal of a decision granting a divorce for lack of final, appealable judgment in a divorce case.
(10-0: Carlton for the Court)

Rash v. State, 2023-KA-01284-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no merit to the pro se arguments that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct, or that the deputy lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop that started it all.
(8-1-0: Carlton for the Court; McDonald concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks dissented without writing)

Patterson v. State, 2024-KA-00268-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the defendant’s rights to confrontation and a fair trial were not violated by the hearsay testimony where a hearsay objection was sustained and no curative instruction was sought and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0: Carlton for the Court)

Lenoire v. State, 2024-KM-00035-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Reversing conviction of practicing law without a license, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the charging affidavit, but that the circuit court’s commentary during the pronouncement of the guilty verdict created a reasonable doubt about the presumption of impartiality and amounted to plain error and that the defendant was deprived of his right to a jury trial and right to counsel.
(6-3: Barnes for the Court; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton and Emfinger; Weddle did not participate)

Jackson v. State, 2023-KA-01280-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of three counts of trafficking controlled substances, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied where, though probable cause to support the warrant was lacking, law enforcement reasonably relied on a facially valid warrant.
(7-1-2: Wilson for the Court; Carlton concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald)

Other Orders

  • Roncali v. State, 2023-KA-00173-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Roberts v. Roberts, 2023-CA-00934-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Terry v. State, 2023-KA-00979-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 17 and June 24, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down a total of sixteen opinions between last week and today. You can read summaries below.

June 17, 2025

Briggs v. Jackson, 2023-CA-01241-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s judgment awarding the mother physical care, custody, and control of two minor children and granting the father visitation rights, holding that the court did not err in its Albright analysis but remanding on the issues of providing coverage of medical expenses, calculation of child support, and visitation schedule.
(10-0: Emfinger for the Court)

Mangum v. State, 2023-KA-01198-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of multiple counts of touching a child for lustful purposes and sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s alibi instruction and did not commit plain error in admitting a memory card with photos.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

Vaughn v. State, 2024-KA-00012-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of multiple counts of drive-by-shooting and shooting int a motor vehicle after review of counsel’s Lindsey brief and independent review of the record.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

Hines v. PERS, 2023-SA-01400-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the PERS Board of Trustees’ decision to deny on-duty disability retirement benefits, holding that the decision was supported by supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious.
(10-0: Westbrooks for the Court)

Rodriguez v. State, 2023-KA-01159-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of one count of manslaughter and two counts of second-degree murder, holding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that there was no merit to claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion sentencing the defendant to serve forty years on each count to run concurrently.
(9-1-0: Barnes for the Court; Westbrooks concurred in result on without writing)

Other Orders

  • Taylor v. State, 2023-KA-00245-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Wallace v. State, 2023-KA-00721-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

June 24, 2025

Martin v. Martin, 2024-CA-00228-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying a petition for custody modification, holding that where there is no finding of an adverse impact there was no need to perform an Albright analysis and modification was not warranted.
(10-0: St. Pe’ for the Court.)

Martin v. Martin, 2024-CA-00222-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s contempt finding in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding the ex-wife in contempt of the divorce judgment and that she failed to prove her inability to comply and finding no abuse of discretion in the chancellor using contempt power of incarceration to enforce compliance.
(10-0: Weddle for the Court)

Boyd v. Jones County, Mississippi, 2024-CA-00290-COA (Civil – Torts)
Dismissing appeal for want of final, appealable order.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)

Howard v. Howard, 2023-CA-01029-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in determining equitable distribution or periodic alimony, or in failing to take into consideration supplemental security income benefits received by the minor child in determining child support.
(10-0: Westbrooks)

McHard, McHard, Anderson & Associates v. Robertson, 2023-CA-00913-COA (Civil – Eminent Domain)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in an eminent domain case, holding that the petitioner failed to prove that its proposed road was necessary.
(9-0: Carlton for the Court; Emfinger did not participate)

Dowdy v. Grayson, 2023-CA-00985-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting a directed verdict on a claim for malicious prosecution but holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing a counterclaim of fraud.
(5-2-3: Barnes for the Court; McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; Wilson dissented, joined by Lawrence and Emfinger, and joined in part by Westbrooks)

Brodie v. Brodie, 2023-CA-01397-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in reversing its initial ruling under Rule 59(e), in granting divorce on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, or in the division of marital property.
(9-1-0: Barnes for the Court; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Gombako-Amos v. Amos, 2023-CA-01253-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment of contempt in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding that the ex-wife was in contempt for failing to comply with a provision of the property settlement agreement.
(6-4: Wilson for the Court; Carlton and Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton, Westbrooks, and McCarty)

Bhatti v. Board of Supervisors of Coahoma County, Mississippi, 2024-CA-00027-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a claim to remove a bust of Ghandi from courthouse grounds, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that claim amounted to a mandamus action and that the petitioner lacked standing.
(8-1*-0: Weddle for the Court; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by McDonald; Barnes did not participate)

Melton v. State, 2024-KM-00337-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Reversing conviction of misdemeanor child abuse, holding that the defendant did not expressly waive her constitutional right to a jury trial.
(6-4: Wilson for the Court; Emfinger dissented, joined by Carlton, Lawrence, and St. Pe’)

Heirs of Morsi v. JB Hunt Corporation, 2024-WC-00399-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that a claim was not compensable, holding that the MWCC’s finding that the “found dead” presumption did not apply was supported by substantial credible evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
(6-1-3: Carlton for the Court; McCarty concurred in result only without writing; Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald and Lawrence)

Other Orders

  • Taylor v. State, 2023-CA-00738-COA (granting leave to file amicus brief)
  • Craft v. State, 2023-KA-00915-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Johnson v. Cleveland, 2023-CA-01011-COA
  • Foster v. Kovachev, 2023-CP-01030-COA (granting “motion regarding settlement,” dismissing certain parties to the appeal, granting in part appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal and request for sanctions and attorney’s fees, and dismissing appeal)
  • Blumer v. Majestic Homes, LLC, 2024-CA-00163-COA (granting motion for appellate attorney’s fees)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 13, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. The court affirmed in two direct criminal appeals but reversed, dismissed, or vacated in each of the remaining cases. Those four consist of a divorce, a real property conveyance, a mechanic lien against real property, and a misdemeanor.

Osing v. Osing, 2022-CA-00755-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancellor’s judgment in a divorce proceeding, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying the husband’s motion to withdraw consent to the irreconcilable-differences divorce, but reversing the chancellor’s division of the marital estate for failure to make sufficient factual findings and, as a result, reversed the chancellor’s award of alimony and a minor child’s college and health-insurance coverage pending reconsideration of the division of the marital estate.
(7-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate)

Campbell v. State, 2022-KA-01055-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err by referencing the grand jury proceedings, that there was no Brady violation regarding lost fingerprints, and that the trial court did not err in overruling a Batson challenge.
(8-0: Smith did not participate)

Alexander v. Espinoza, 2023-CP-01139-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Dismissing the appeal of a chancellor’s order denying declaratory relief, holding that the chancellor’s order was not a final judgment because it did not resolve all claims against all parties, and it did not contain 54(b) certification language.
(9-0)

In the Matter of the Estate of Johnson: Manners v. Estate of Johnson, 2023-CA-00823-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s decision denying a claim to enforce rights under a document by which a decedent had intended to convey an interest in real property, holding that the document was a valid conveyance of an interest in the property and remanded for necessary parties to be joined and for further proceedings consistent with the opinions.
(9-0)

Carpenter v. State, 2023-KA-00580-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of child exploitation, holding that section 97-5-33(8) of Mississippi’s child exploitation statute is not unconstitutional for overbreadth or for supporting entrapment and holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
(9-0)

NOTE – Here is the court’s description of section Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-33(8):

Holt v. State, 2023-KM-00121-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Vacating and remanding dismissal of an appeal to the circuit court from a conviction of simple domestic assault originating in municipal court, holding that the circuit court erred by dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief without giving notice of the deficiency and an opportunity to cure and that the record was insufficient to determine whether the circuit court had jurisdiction for want of posting a cost bond.
(7-1-0: Carlton concurred in result only without writing; Smith did not participate)

  • Bradford v. State, 2022-KA-00493-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Hutson v. Hutson, 2022-CT-00569-COA (dismissing motion for appellate attorney’s fees)
  • Taylor v. Johnson, 2022-CA-00734-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Brown v. Black, 2022-CA-00869-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Roley v. Roley, 2022-CP-01104-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Winstead v. State, 2022-KA-01235-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Smith v. State, 2023-KA-00185-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Magyar v. Shiers, 2023-CA-00682-COA (denying motion to dismiss appeal)
  • Brown v. State, 2024-TS-00741-COA (granting motion to proceed out of time)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 14, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down one opinion today. The issue is a battle between COVID and the rules of appellate procedure. Read on to see who won…

Gilmer v. Biegel, 2022-CP-00528-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming order denying appellant’s motion for extension under Rule 4(g) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, holding the 30-day window for a motion under Rule 4(g) is “hard edged” so the trial court properly denied the motion for extension filed 50 days after the initial appeal deadline passed, and the court was without jurisdiction to suspend the rules and allow the appeal to proceed as if timely filed.
(9-0)

NOTE – The appellant argued that a severe bout of COVID and resulting “brain fog” was to blame. He argued that the notice of appeal should be accepted as timely filed, “especially in light of this Court’s COVID-19 emergency orders authorizing trial courts to exercise sound discretion in extending deadline.” But the court was not persuaded:

Other Orders

Fair v. State,  2023-M-00783 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding it frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions)

West Jasper Consolidated School District v. Rogers, 2021-CT-00171-SCT (denying cert)

In the Matter of the Estate of Biddle, 2021-CP-00513-SCT (denying rehearing)

Maxwell v. Panola County, 2021-CT-01001-SCT (denying cert)

Barber v. State, 2022-KA-00291-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 25, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and there is something for just about every practice area. There are two appellate jurisdiction cases, a will contest, a breach of contract case, two direct criminal appeals, a divorce/marital estate division case, a breach of termite contract case, an intra-church lawsuit, and an intentional tort/attorney’s fees case.

Herning v. Lakeview S/C Partners, Ltd., 2021-CA-01427-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the defendant’s appeal from summary judgment for the plaintiff entered by the county court, holding that the defendant failed to pay the cost bond for his appeal within the thirty-day time limit so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
(8-2: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Pearson v. Eubanks, 2022-CA-00011-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancery court’s dismissal of a will contest, holding that the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations when the filed the will contest provided them stating to contest the will on undue influence grounds.
(10-0)

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00472-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first and second degree murder, holding:
1. No error in transferring venue that the defendant requested.
2. No error in denying Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground jury instructions.
3. The doctrine of retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
4. Limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a witness about his pending indictment was harmless error.
5. The objection to the investigator’s testimony about exit wounds was waived.
6. No speedy trial violation (issue raised pro se)
7. No error in denying the motion to quash and dismiss the indictment (issue raised pro se)
8. The State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct (issue raised pro se)
9. No error in allowing the jury to review transcript of the defendant’s recorded statement (issue raised pro se)
10. Evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of it (issue raised pro se)
(7-3-0: Barnes and Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Smith concurred in part and in the result, joined by Barnes and Lawrence.)

Kloss v. Bay Pest Control, Inc., 2021-CA-01117-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing breach of termite-prevention contract and negligence claim, holding that the presence of termites alone did not support the breach of contract claim or the negligence claim.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Underwood v. State, 2021-CP-01123-COA (Civil – Other)
Dismissing direct appeal of a guilty plea for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice.
(10-0)

Christian v. State, 2021-KA-00898-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and the Court’s review of the record, holding that there were no arguable issues for appeal.
(10-0)

Lewis v. Lewis, 2022-CA-00016-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s line of demarcation for division of the marital estate and award of alimony, holding that the chancellor was well within her discretion to use a December 2020 temporary order as the line of demarcation rather that the trial date and that the chancellor’s alimony findings were sufficient and her ruling was not ab abuse of discretion.
(10-0)

Miller v. Board of Trustees of Second Baptist Church of Starkville, 2020-CA-01384-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing a monetary judgment following a jury trial, holding that the board of trustees of a church lacked standing to sue the church’s senior pastor and chairman of its deacons for breach of fiduciary duties and other claims, holding that the board lacked authority to file the lawsuit without the church members’ approval and lacked authority to maintain suit after a majority of members voted against it.
(5-2-3: Westbrooks and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Greenlee dissented without separate written opinion; Barnes dissented, joined by Greenlee and McDonald)

Herbert v. Herbert, 2021-CA-01291-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming on direct appeal and reversing on cross-appeal, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds the affirmative defense of release because that defense had been waived but affirming on de novo review of the merits of claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, verbal assault, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, and breach of contract, but reversing the circuit court’s denial of attorney’s fees to the defendant and remanded for further proceedings.
(6-1-2: McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald; Emfinger did not participate.)

Other Orders

Lofton v. Lofton, 2021-CA-00035-COA (denying rehearing)

Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CA-00668-COA (denying rehearing)

Buchanan v. State, 2021-CP-01069-COA (recalling mandate so motion for rehearing can proceed on merits)

Hand Down Page

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 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