Tag: child support

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 7, 2023

The ever-prolific Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There is a mix of criminal, domestic, and civil cases with a unifying theme of appellees running the table.

Edwards v. State, 2021-KM-01348-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of first-offense DUI, holding that there was probable cause for the traffic stop and that law enforcement was not required to inform the defendant of his right to an independent and alternative BAC test.
(10-0)

Harrison v. Howard, 2021-CA-00697-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment of contempt for failure to comply with agreed order of modification of child custody and support, holding that the father waived improper service, that the agreed modification order was voidable but not void and he failed to timely appeal it, and that he waived the issue of termination of the mother’s child support obligation by not timely objecting or appealing.
(7-3-0: Wilson, McCarty, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Washington v. State, 2021-KA-01041-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and armed robbery, holding that the trial court’s comments to the jury that this was not a death penalty case was appropriate clarification of fact and did not prejudice the jury, that the defendant did not prove that the State’s loss of a video lineup was not bad faith, that there was no proof that inadmissible portions of video testimony were played to the jury and so it is presumed that the trial court’s order sustaining an objection to the inadmissible testimony was heeded, and that if admitting a handgun into evidence was error it was invited by the defendant who introduced it.
(7-3-0: Wilson, McCarty, and Emfinger concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Pace v. State, 2022-KA-00046-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court erred in admitting photos without a proper foundation but the error was harmless, that the defendant waived the argument that the State made an improper comment during closing by not objecting, and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s self-defense instruction.
(7-2-0: Wilson and Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion, Smith did not participate.)

Brandon v. State, 2021-KA-01239-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and a review of the record finding no arguable issues for appeal.
(10-0)

Lofton v. Lofton, 2021-CA-00035-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming judgment in a fraudulent-transfer of real and personal property lawsuit that is tangential to a pending divorce action, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the UFTA supported a finding of fraud or in awarding the prevailing party attorney’s fees.
(9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in the result only.)

NOTE – This is an interesting and fact-bound decision discussing the UFTA.

Mack v. State, 2021-CA-01060-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming denial of expungement, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff’s conviction was related to his official duties as a police officer.
(10-0)

Clark v. Tippah County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2021-CP-01209-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming judgment terminating parental rights, holding that the mother’s due process claims were procedurally barred and without merit and that the chancellor did not err in terminating parental rights.
(7-2-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in the result only; Greenlee did not participate.)

West Jasper Consolidated School District v. Rogers, 2021-CA-00171-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming chancery court’s judgment that the school district breached 16th section lease terms regarding rent adjustments, holding that the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction, applied the correct standard of review, did not err in finding no material breach by appellees, did not err in overturning the county board’s ruling, and did not err in denying attorney’s fees to the appellant.
(10-0)

Other Orders

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (denying rehearing)

Belmer v. State, 2021-CP-00398-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (denying rehearing)

Howard Industries, Inc. v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (denying rehearing)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 1, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals kicked off November with eight opinions. There are two domestic cases dealing with custody and divorce, a personal injury case adjacent to a workers’ comp claim with a statute of limitation issue, two reversals in administrative cases (MDES and MDHS), two PCR cases, and one criminal case.

Jarvis v. State, 2021-CP-00930-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff’s guilty plea waived his defective-indictment claim based on alleged insufficiency in the State’s evidence and that his ineffective assistance claim lacked merit.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CA-01162-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part a chancellor’s child-custody modification order, holding that the chancery court manifestly erred by finding an adverse effect on the child, did not err in denying attorney’s fees, and did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel completion of a financial disclosure statement.
(4-2-4: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Smith.)

Baughman v. Baughman, 2021-CA-00074-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce proceeding, affirming denial of the ex-husband’s claim for separate maintenance, affirming the denial of divorce on the grounds of adultery, and reversing the denial of divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.
(5-4-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson, Judge Greenlee, and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; and Judge Carlton did not participate.)

Keys v. Rehabilitation, Inc., 2021-CA-01338-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of certain claims as barred by the statute of limitations, holding that the plaintiff’s claims against a third-party (not the Employer, Carrier, or TPA) arising from the utilization review process in the course of his treatment for a workers’ comp injury were barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
(9-0: Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – A critical aspect of this decision was that the lawsuit did not arise from the denial of workers’ comp benefits:

Bowman v. State, 2020-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state medical examiner to testify about the cause and manner of death, in denying motions to suppress evidence seized at the defendant’s Mississippi property and in his vehicle in Utah, in denying a flight-evidence motion in limine and giving a flight-evidence jury instruction, or in refusing the defendant’s request for additional circumstantial evidence instructions, and that the convictions were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and were based on sufficient evidence.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

MDHS v. Reaves, 2021-SA-01133-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the chancery court’s order directing MDHS to reimburse the plaintiff for past child-support payments, holding that reimbursement was improper because a noncustodial parent cannot recover the child-support payments he made on behalf of his child.
(7-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second PCR petition, holding that the court did not err when it was not persuaded that the guilty plea lacked a factual basis and was involuntary, that the indictment was defective, or that counsel was ineffective.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Vector Transportation Co. v. MDES, 2021-CC-00576-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the MDES Board of Review’s determination that an employee was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the employer met its burden of proof to show that the employee’s termination was for misconduct.
(6-3: Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part; Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and joined in part by Judge McDonald; Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Simpson v. State, 2021-KA-00075-COA (denying rehearing)

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 18, 2022

We got five opinions today from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. There are two chancery cases, one dealing with termination of parental rights and another dealing with an appeal from a judgment of divorce, distribution, and child support. There is an appeal of a summary judgment in a slip and fall case, an unsuccessful appeal from a default judgment, and a criminal case challenging the admissibility of witness testimony.

Middlebrook v. Fuller, 2021-CA-00590-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment adjudicating paternity and terminating parental rights, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights and that the chancellor did not err in making that determination contrary to the GAL’s recommendation.
(9-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without written opinion.)

Hill v. Central Sunbelt Federal Credit Union, 2021-CA-00833-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting summary judgment dismissing a slip and fall case, holding that rainwater on a porch did not constitute a dangerous condition where it was actively raining, surveillance video showed that water was not pudding or accumulating on the porch, and there was no evidence of other falls.
(7-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate.)

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside entry of default, holding that the inadvertence by the defendant’s registered agent was not a legitimate explanation justifying the default and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant had not presented a sufficient colorable defense.
(10-0)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that a witness’s testimony that she saw the defendant with a firearm weeks before the incident was properly admitted and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Green v. Green, 2021-CP-01167-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part on appeal from the chancery court’s judgment in a divorce case, holding that the appellant waived her right to challenge the merits of her divorce because she failed to appear at the hearing on the merits, that she waived that issue of distribution of marital assets by failing to cite legal authority to support her claims on appeal, but reversing and remanding for the chancellor to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Ferguson and to issue written findings concerning the reasonableness of the amount of child support.
(8-2: Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee -“If there is ever a case for waiver, this is it.”)

Other Orders

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (denying rehearing)
Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985 (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 11, 2022

I did not post summaries last week because was out of town all week. I plan to do a post summarizing last week’s decisions at some point, but today is not that day because the Court of Appeals just handed down nine more opinions.

Today was a big day for Rule 4 and for workers’ comp, with two decisions for each of those subject areas. One of the workers’ comp decisions has a significant amount of analysis of the issue of whether the claimant overcame the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity. The other workers’ comp decision provides some clarity (and teeth) to the affirmative defense of intoxication. Additionally, we learned today that you should not white-out the defendant’s name on a summons after it is issued, write the name of the defendant to be served over the white-out, and then serve that altered summons on your defendant. There is also a divorce case dealing with child support, several criminal cases, and a lone PCR case.

Carnley v. State, 2021-KA-00438-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of rape, declining to reverse based on the exclusion of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement because no proffer was made and holding there was no error in the admission of expert testimony, that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, that the jury was properly instructed to continue its deliberation in lieu of a Sharplin instruction, and that the trial court did not commit cumulative error.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wharton v. State, 2021-CA-00136-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Procedure)
Reversing a default judgment on a civil asset forfeiture petition, holding that the State failed to “strictly” comply with the Rule 4 requirements for service by publication, that the respondent did not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process by failing to plead it in his answer because the answer was filed after the entry of default, and that the case should be remanded to give the State an opportunity to show good cause for failing to serve process before the statute of limitations expired.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion and Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE 1– There is a lot of civil and appellate procedure in this opinion (Miss. R. Civ. P. 4, 55; Miss. R. App. P. 2, 31). The appellate procedure ruling was interesting because the appellant missed his briefing deadline, but the Court of Appeals held that he should have been afforded 14 days to correct this “deficiency” and since he filed two days late he was within that window. This is interesting, but not a maneuver I plan to attempt.

Note 2 – I also want to point out this holding that although it is a fact-bound holding, these are facts one could find oneself bound up in.

Howard Industries v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of sanctions against the Employer’s counsel for attempting to mislead the Commission, the Commission’s finding that the claimant had overcome the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarding permanent disability benefits for her 2007 injury, and the Commission’s award of 38% industrial loss of use of her right upper extremity for her 2015 injury.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part (on the sanction issue), joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McCarty, and Judge Smith. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon the affirmative defense of intoxication, holding that the Employer’s payment of benefits did not estop the Employer from asserting the intoxication defense that was pleaded in the answer and that the very presence of marijuana in the claimant’s system raised the presumption of intoxication.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case seems to answer a question that has lingered since the MWCA was amended to add the intoxication defense about what the effect of a positive drug test that does not give any indication of the degree of intoxication. In this case, the Court of Appeals decisively that any amount of intoxication triggers the presumption. A claimant can still seek to overcome that presumption, but based on the Meek decision a claimant cannot overcome the presumption by pointing to a lack of proof of the level of marijuana in the claimant’s system.

Ponder v. Ponder, 2020-CA-01196-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding child support retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification but holding that there was no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees against the father for failing to comply with an agreed order.
(9-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Villareal v. State, 2021-CP-00440-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Carruthers v. State, 2021-KA-00654-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth trafficking as subsequent offender in possession of a firearm near a church and possession of firearm by felon, holding that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged failures to object at various points in the trial or for alleged failure to investigate or for alleged failure to stipulate to a prior felony to keep evidence of the prior felony.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Arrington v. Anderson, 2021-CA-00233-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of two identical negligence lawsuits, holding that a summons that was altered after issuance to change the name of the party to be summonsed to the defendant’s name and then served on the defendant was not valid service of process, that since process was not served the statute of limitations had expired the first lawsuit, and that the second lawsuit was not a “refiling” of the first since it was filed while the first suit was still pending.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Daniels v. State, 2021-KA-01067-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of armed robbery, two counts and aggravated assault, one count of house burglary, and one count of grand larceny, holding that the circuit court did not err in telling the jury panel that the defendant was charged as a habitual offender or in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about the defendant’s apprehension, arrest, and felony charges that immediately followed the activities for which he was convicted in this trial.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (denying rehearing)
Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (denying rehearing)
Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (granting appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief)
Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying State’s motion to dismiss appeal)

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

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 5, 2022

After a slow week on the opinion front the Mississippi Court of Appeals is back in action with eight opinions today. There is a domestic relations case dealing with a slew of arguments about child support and child custody, a criminal appeal addressing waiver of potential conflicts with codefendants being represented by a single attorney, a disability opinion, an unemployment opinion, and several PCR opinions.

Wallace v. Wallace, 2020-CA-01148-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Custody/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions related to a series of motions related to child support and custody modification:
1. No error in finding the father in arrears for child support for the period of time during which the mother had voluntarily modified the custody arrangement, but not the child support arrangement.
2. No error in finding the father in arrears for nonapyment of daycare and after-school expenses even though the mother “stockpiled” receipts for years rather than presenting them every 30 days as required by the MDA.
3. No error in decision that the mother was not in contempt for withholding visitation in light of the “substantial discretion regarding contempt matters” afforded to chancellors and evidence in the record that visitation was never withheld.
4. No error in no awarding both parents the right to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes because in the absence of specific findings of fact the court assumes the chancellor resolved any factual disputes in favor of the appellee.
5. No error in declining to hold the mother in contempt over the aforementioned stockpiling of daycare/after-school receipts.
6. No error in awarding the mother attorney’s fees in light of the fact that the father was held in contempt.
7. No error in awarding just $1,000 in attorney’s fees to the father for the mother’s violation of the morals clause considering the discretion chancellor’s enjoy on such decisions.
8. No error in ordering the father to provide for the children’s health insurance considering the children’s loss of access to employment-related insurance after the mother’s job was eliminated due to COVID-19.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Magee v. State and Haynes v. State, 2020-KA-01378-COA (Criminal – Felony/Waiver of Potential Conflicts/Dual Representation/Sufficiency of the Evidence/Jury Instructions)
Affirming convictions of co-defendants in consolidated appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling giving the defendants what they asked for by allowing them to waive potential conflicts with being represented by the same attorney, finding that the defendants knowingly and intelligently waived the potential conflicts. The court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of both defendants for kidnapping and conspiracy, and the conviction of one defendant for sexual battery. Finally, the court of appeals held that there was no error in denying two of the defendants’ proposed jury instructions or in the circuit court’s sua sponte conspiracy instruction.
(All judges concurred)

Hickerson v. State, 2021-CA-00176-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition for PCR, holding that there was no error in finding that the petition was procedurally deficient for failing to attach competent affidavits and that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Barbour v. Singing River Health System Employees’ Retirement Plan and Trust, 2020-CA-01407-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies/Disability)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying disability benefits, holding that to the extent the chancellor’s reference to an incorrect standard of review was in error, it was harmless because the plaintiff was not an “employee” of Singing River at the time of his injury.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in result, joined by Judge Smith and Judge Emfinger and in part by Judge McCarty)

Handyman House Techs, LLC v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00029-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming MDES’s determination that an applicant for unemployment benefits was a “employee” rather than an “independent contractor,” holding that the MDES Board of Review’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Ford v. State, 2020-CP-00372-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the second PCR motion was an impermissible successive motion.
(All judges concurred)

Thompson v. State, 2020-CP-01236-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR, finding no merit to the claims that the indictment was defective, that the guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered, that the defendant’s attorney had a conflict of interest and provided ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the defendant’s statement and the victim’s statement were coerced.
(All judges concurred)

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (Civil – PCR/Miller)
On rehearing, withdrawing a previous opinion and substituting an opinion holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the defendant did not have a statutory right to be resentenced under Miller, that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for parole eligibility, that the defendant was not deprived of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of rehabilitation, that the defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentence was not unconstitutional based on arguments about the defendant’s age and IQ.

Other Orders

Walker v. State, 2020-KA-228-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of February 22, 2022

There are three opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals today. Two of the decision affirmed the denials of pro se, PCR motions. The more interesting decision to me is a domestic relations case tangentially involving COVID.

Tolliver v. Tolliver, 2020-CA-1357-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/modification/COVID)
Affirming a judgment dismissing a request for a downward modification of alimony and child support obligations, holding that the chancellor did not err in determining that the petitioner was responsible for losing his primary job when he failed to return to work after a mandatory, fourteen-day COVID quarantine and voluntarily quit additional part time work and that the chancellor applied the correct burden of proof requiring the petitioner to show that his termination of employment and change in income were not caused by his own bad-faith actions.

ADDENDUM – COVID AND THE LAW: I am certain this will not be the last decision dealing with the secondary effects of COVID. In this case, the petitioner contracted COVID and was ordered to isolate from July 20, 2020, through August 3, 2020. He received sick pay from his employer during this mandatory quarantine. He claimed that he was still experiencing COVID symptoms when his mandatory quarantine expired on August 4, 2020, and did not return to work. He received a letter from his employer on August 10, 2020, informing him that he had been terminated as of August 7, 2020 for failure to report his absences. An aggravating factor in this case is that the employer’s termination letter also charged that the petitioner was engaged in outside employment during his paid sick leave which violated company policy. COVID was not a main character in the court’s decision, but it appears the petitioner wanted it to be. I expect to see more of this in the future.

Jones v. State, 2021-CP-270-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the claim was procedurally barred and that, in any event, the petitioner’s plea colloquy was sufficient for his sentencing as a habitual offender.

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-1026-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the claim was procedurally barred and that underlying claims were without merit.

Other Orders

The court denied motions for rehearing in Piccaluga v. State, 2020-KA-346-COA, and in Humphrey v. Steve Holts, 2021-CA-46-COA.

Complete Hand Down List for February 22, 2022

Mississippi Court of Appeals Hand Downs for February 8, 2022

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Mississippi v. Brown and Brown of Mississippi, LLC, 2020-CA-1414-COA (Civil – Contract/Garnishment)
Brown obtained two judgments against a BCBS insurance agent, enrolled the judgments, and then filed suit to enforce the judgments and suggestions for writs of garnishment against BCBS and others. BCBS denied it was indebted to the agent. The circuit court ordered BCBS to tender the agent’s commissions to Brown. BCBS appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the circuit court and rendered judgment in favor of BCBS, finding that the agent had assigned her interest in the commissions to a third party long before the writ of garnishment was served. The court of appeals also held that BCBS was entitled to its costs under section 11-35-45 and remanded to the circuit court to address that issue.

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-299-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that it was harmless error for the the circuit court to exclude non-hearsay testimony under the hearsay rule and that the circuit court did not err admitting body cam footage. The opinion lists a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as one of the issues raised, but there is no discussion of that in the majority opinion, the special concurrence, or the dissent.

Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CA-728-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s judgment increasing the child support modification based on a material change in circumstances.

Mangum v. State, 2020-CP-1205-COA (Civil – Post-Conviction Relief)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a motion for PCR based on the statute of limitations and the successive-motions bar.

United Services Automobile Association v. Moffatt, 2020-CA-1391-COA (Civil – Insurance/UM UIM)
The county court granted summary judgment in favor of a UM carrier, finding that the amended complaint naming the UM carrier was time barred because it was filed more than three years after the accident. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court and the summary judgment was reversed. The UM carrier appealed to the court of appeals and the court of appeals affirmed the circuit court and remanded the case to the county court. The court of appeals held that there was a genuine fact issue for a jury as to when the plaintiff’s UM claim accrued based on when it could be reasonably known that the damages suffered exceed the limits of insurance available to the alleged tortfeasor.

Lowe v. State, 2019-KA-1621 (Criminal – Felony/Confrontation Clause)
Affirming a conviction of the sale of cocaine and sentencing as a habitual offender, holding that an officer’s testimony that a non-testifying confidential informant said she had bought drugs from the defendant in the past violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment but was harmless error.

Other Orders
6 Rehearing Denials

Link to Hand Down List