Tag: COVID

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of January 18, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions on Thursday, January 18. Of the four, there were three direct criminal appeals and the fourth was an appeal in a money dispute between a county and a school district.

Douglas v. State, 2022-KA-00859-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sale of cocaine and life sentence as habitual offender, holding that the defendant waived defective indictment argument by failing to object in the trial court, that the argument that his indictment was improper because his name was incorrect was barred and without merit, that the defendant was not denied the right to represent himself because he never asked to, that the judge did not err by not recusing sua sponte, that witness credibility was for the jury to determine, that the defendant’s Fourth Amendment arguments were barred and without merit, that there was no merit to the defendant’s chain-of-custody argument, that there was no merit to the defendant’s Brady claim, that the defendant’s arguments about the amount of the controlled substance were without merit, that the defendant’s Confrontation Clause argument was barred and without merit, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the defendant’s argument that his right to a public trial was not violated where the jury deliberated and returned a verdict after business hours, and that the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was without merit.
(9-0)

Davis v. State, 2022-KA-00696-SCT, consolidated with Jackson v. State, 2022-KA-00731-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of two counts of first-degree murder but vacating a portion of the sentences, holding that the firearm-enhancement portion of the sentences was prohibited because a greater minimum sentence (life sentence) was otherwise provided for, but holding that under the plain error doctrine there was no evidence the defendants did not receive a fair trial by an impartial jury where the Batson challenge procedure was not followed to determine if the race-neutral reason was pretextual, that the verdict supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in denying one defendant’s motion to server, and the cumulative errors doctrine did not require reversal.
(6-3: Kitchens dissented, joined by King and Ishee; King dissented, joined by Kitchens and Ishee)

Clarke County, Mississippi v. Quitman School District, 2022-CA-00471-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing on direct appeal and on cross appeal in a case about whether a school district was entitled to funds recovered by a county from the bankruptcy proceedings of a delinquent taxpayer, holding that the statutory scheme for funding public schools does not entitle school districts to receive delinquent taxes recovered years later in bankruptcy proceedings that are outside of the statutory scheme so the chancellor erred in awarding the school district a portion of the funds.
(9-0)

Stewart v. State, 2022-KA-00107-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery, holding that in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic the trial court was within its discretion to have the defendant attend a pretrial, tender-years hearing virtually; that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence; that issues related to jury instructions were barred for failure to object and there was no plain error; and that the trial court did not err in sustaining the State’s objection to certain lines of questions while defense counsel was cross-examining witnesses.
(6-3: Kitchens concurred in result only, joined by King and Ishee)

Other Orders

In Re: State Intervention Courts Advisory Committee, 89-R-99039-SCT (approving the designation of Katharine Surkin, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, of Justice Robert P. Chamberlin as Chair of the State Intervention Courts Advisory Committee and the following as members through December 31, 2024: Judge Michael M. Taylor, Judge Winston L. Kidd, Judge Robert Helfrich, Judge Charles E. Webster, Judge Kathy King Jackson, Judge Randi P. Mueller, Representative Angela Cockerham, Nathan Blevins Deputy Commissioner of Community Corrections, MDOC, Mark Smith, Executive Director, State Veterans Affairs Board, Andrea Sanders, Commissioner, Miss. Department of Child Protection Services, and Consuelo Walley, Coordinator, Jones County Drug Ct, 18th Judicial Circuit, and further designating the following alternate members who may attend and vote in the absence of an appointed committee member: Judge Mary “Betsy” Cotton, Judge Mike Dickinson, and Judge Walt Brown.

Cochran v. State, 2014-M-00090 (denying “Request for Post-Conviction Forensic, DNA, and Handwriting Testing,” finding that the filing was frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings may be sanctioned)

Trest v. State, 2021-CT-00968-SCT (denying cert)

Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Jackson Federation of Teachers and PSRPS, 2022-CA-00464-SCT (denying cert)

Brent v. MDHS, 2022-CT-00529-SCT (granting cert)

In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2024-AD-00001-SCT (directing the disbursement of $215,281.86 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Center for Legal Services, MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, and North MS Rural Legal Services.

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 Supreme Court Decisions of March 9, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today and not one is pedestrian. The first involves whether the loser in an insurance coverage dec action can come back after the mandate in the dec action and after being vindicated in the underlying liability action, to get relief under Rule 60(b) from the no-coverage judgment. In the next case, the Court weighs in on the Jackson mayor’s attempt to veto the city council’s inaction on the garbage collection contract. The third case is an appeal of an order of contempt and order denying recusal after the attorney failed to appear at trial after representing to the circuit court that he had Covid.

Scruggs v. Farmland Mut. Ins. Co., 2021-CA-00877-SCT (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, holding that the mandate rule deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain a Rule 60(b) motion twenty years after the Supreme Court’s opinion and mandate.
(9-0)

CONTEXT – The facts make this ruling a bit more interesting than the holding suggests. Many years go, the plaintiffs (Scruggses) lost an insurance coverage dec action in state court 20 years ago. Coverage had been denied because the Scruggses were accused of committing intentional acts by Monsanto. The Scruggses then prevailed in Monsanto’s federal lawsuit against them. I’ll let the Supremes take it from here:

Lumumba v. City Council of Jackson, 2022-CA-00855-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the special chancellor’s summary judgment in favor of the city council in this episode of Jackson’s garbage-collection saga, holding that the mayor did not have legal authority to veto a non-action or negative vote of the city counsel the city council’s non-ratification of the garbage collection contract presented by the mayor.
(9-0)

NOTE – The Court also held that the trial court did not err in allowing the city council to admit exhibits (public records that had been produced to the mayor) at the MSJ hearing that were not yet filed in the record of that case and that the chancellor did not err in denying the mayor’s motion for additional findings because the mayor could not both object to the court’s consideration of the city council’s exhibits while also asking the court to consider the mayor’s extrinsic evidence.

In Re: Ali M. Shamsiddeen, 2021-CA-01217-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming order of contempt and order denying recusal, holding that the trial court did not err in finding defense counsel in contempt for failing to appear at a pretrial conference (in person or virtually, after being given that opportunity) or at the trial because defense counsel said he had COVID but only provided a vague medical excuse and quarantine order but refused to provide medical documentation of the diagnosis.
(7-2: Kitchens dissented, joined by King)

NOTE – Here is the email the attorney sent to the court on the eve of trial.

Other Orders

In Re: Local Rules, 89-R-99015-SCT (granting motion to amend Tenth Chancery Court District’s local rules)

Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CT-00847-SCT (dismissing previously-granted cert sua sponte)

Simmons v. Jackson County, 2020-CT-01014-SCT (denying cert)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CT-01280-SCT (denying cert)

Boyd v. State, 2021-CT-00066-SCT (denying cert)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CT-00258-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 22, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases dealing with issues that occurred during voir dire. In one, the issue was an inculpatory exclamation by the defendant. In the other, the issue was two jurors’ undisclosed connection the defendant. The third opinion is a journey through contempt law.

Scott v. State, 2021-KA-01015-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion denying the defendant’s attorney’s request for a mistrial after the defendant exclaimed during voir dire that he was “guilty as hell.”
(9-0)

Note – This decision seems correct to me.

Watts v. State, 2021-KA-00873-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming denial of a JNOV after the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a denial, holding that although two jurors did not disclose that they were related to a man who was murdered by the defendant’s brother in 2006 the court did not commit clear error in determining after an evidentiary hearing that those jurors lacked substantial knowledge of their connection with the defendant during voir dire.
(9-0)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
This decision waded into a morass of contempt and affirmed the chancellor in part, reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s finding that two attorneys handling a divorce proceeding were in direct criminal contempt for missing a hearing, vacating the penalty for that because it exceeded statutory authority and remanded on that issue, and affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to the other side. The Supreme Court vacated judgment of direct criminal contempt against another attorney and remanded for proceedings on under the constructive criminal contempt standards. The Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in finding these attorneys in direct criminal contempt for violating a court order and remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced.
(6-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Coleman.)

Practice Point – Don’t miss hearings. Don’t violate orders. If you have further questions about what went wrong here or about the intricacies of direct criminal contempt, indirect/constructive criminal contempt, and civil contempt I refer refer you to the opinion and wish you the best.

Other Orders

Hamer v. State, 2019-CT-01633-SCT (denying cert)
Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CT-00728-SCT (denying cert)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-01308-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 26, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals was short on opinions and long on “housekeeping” orders today. There were two opinions affirming criminal convictions and one chancery matter dealing with division of marital assets, alimony, and custody/visitation. One of the criminal appellants made a scrappy argument that Covid deprived him of due process during his trial.

Boyd v. State, 2021-KA-00066-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of murder and one count of aggravated assault stemming from a marijuana deal that went off the rails, holding that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel amounting to a violation of constitutional rights and that review of the record showed affirmatively that his ineffective assistance claims were without merit. The meritless issues raised involved the lack of a request for a jury instruction regarding imperfect self-defense manslaughter, the lack of objection to an investigator’s testimony regarding Facebook messages and the admission of those messages as exhibits, the lack of objection to the State’s cross-examination of the defendant regarding text messages, and the lack of objection to comments by the prosecutor during closing.
(9-1-0)

Walker v. State, 2021-KA-00483-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery, holding that the evidence was sufficient even without “physical or scientific” evidence, that there was no due process violation in holding trial during the Covid pandemic, that the defendant was procedurally barred from arguing prosecutorial misconduct because he cited no evidence to support it, that there was no error in admitting testimony of two investigators, and that there was no miscarriage of justice in the prosecutor reading only a portion of a jury instruction during closing.
(10-0)

ADDENDUM – COVID and the Law: The defendant argued that fear of Covid created an urgency among the jurors that prevented them from faithfully discharging their sworn duties. This argument failed for want of evidence:

Garner v. Garner, 2021-CA-00038-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s awards following an irreconcilable differences divorce between an OB/GYN and her husband, rejecting the ex-husband’s arguments on appeal and holding that his award of 48% of the martial property was the product of a proper Ferguson analysis, that there was no error awarding him rehabilitative alimony in lieu of more “accessible cash,” and that chancellor properly applied the Albright factors in awarding sole legal and physical custody to the mother.
(9-1-0)

Other Orders

McGee v. Neel Schaffer Engineers and Planners Inc., 2020-CA-01277-COA (denying rehearing)

Magee v. State, 2020-KA-01378-COA (denying rehearing)

Haynes v. State, 2020-KA-01397-COA (denying rehearing)

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (recalling mandate and accepting motion for rehearing as timely)

Jones v. State, 2021-KA-01263-COA (dismissing motion to dismiss appeal as untimely and granting appellant’s motion to proceed out-of-time)

Lawrence v. State, 2021-TS-01324-COA (granting appellant’s motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal)

Wilson v. State, 2022-TS-00268-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)

Harrell v. State, 2022-TS-00276-COA (denying appellant’s pro se motion to reinstate appeal)

Rice v. State, 2022-TS-00400-COA (affirming circuit court’s judgment)

Gutierrez v. State, 2022-TS-00459-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)

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

The Mississippi Court of Appeals dropped nine opinions today including upheld convictions, dismissal of a civil case for discovery violations, a workers’ comp appeal, petitions for custody modification, and a couple of of PCR motions.

Davis v. State, 2020-CP-00283-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for PCR, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred.
(All judges concurred)

Fluker v. State, 2021-CP-00162-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for PCR (the plaintiff’s fourth such effort), holding that the plaintiff waived any procedural defects in his indictment when he pleaded guilty and that his claim based on the circuit clerk’s failure to stamp “filed” on the indictment was therefore procedurally barred.
(All judges concurred)

Mize v. Shiloh Market, Inc., 2020-CP-01119-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Rule 37/Rule 60(b))
Affirming the dismissal of a trip-and-fall lawsuit based upon the plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate in discovery, holding that it was within the circuit court’s discretion to dismiss the claims after the plaintiffs’ failed to respond to the defendant’s discovery after the deadline set by a consent order granting the defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses and to deny the plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion).

Addendum – COVID and the Law: Neither the circuit court nor the court of appeals was persuaded by the plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) motion argument that their discovery responses were not served because of attorney was having issues, including some COVID-related, constituted “exceptional circumstances”:

Kreppner v. Kreppner, 2021-CA-00006-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Custody Modification)
Affirming the chancellor’s denial of the mother’s motion to modify the terms of an agreed custody order, holding that the father’s remarriage and the resulting changes in the minor’s life did not constitute a “material change in circumstances” and that the Riley test did not apply because there was no evidence of genuinely adverse circumstances.”
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Butler v. State, 2020-KA-00806-COA (Criminal – Felony/Culpable Negligence Manslaughter)
Affirming conviction of culpable negligence manslaughter stemming from a boat collision, holding (1) that the circuit court did not err in granting the State’s motion in limine excluding evidence about the other driver’s prior drug use, (2) that the State presented sufficient evidence for the conviction without regarding to any intoxication argument because there was evidence that the defendant violated five boating rules leading up to the collision, and (3) that the weight-of-the-evidence argument was procedurally barred and meritless.
(Judge Lawrence wrote a special concurrence joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McDonald, and Judge McCarty)

Wall v. Wall, 2020-CA-01182-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Child Custody Modification)
Affirming the chancery court’s involuntary dismissal of the father’s petition for child custody modification, holding that the chancellor did not err in dismissing the petition under Rule 41(b) at the conclusion of the hearing because the father did not prove a material change in circumstances and that the lack of specific discussion of the father’s concerns about the mother’s alcohol use did not mean the issue was overlooked such that the chancellor failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.
(Judge Lawrence concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Hawkins v. State, 2020-KA-01263-COA (Criminal – Felony/DUI)
Affirming conviction of two counts of aggravated DUI after the defendant’s appellate counsel filed a Lindsey brief and the defendant elected not to file a supplemental brief pro se.
(All judges concurred)

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Vaughters, 2021-WC-00364-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation/Jurisdiction)
Dismissing an appeal from the MWCC, holding that the Commission’s order vacating the AJ’s order and remanding for a determination as to compensability, coverage, and jurisdiction was not a final, appealable judgment.
(All judges concurred)

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (Criminal – Felony/Excited Utterance)
Affirming convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by (1) admitting testimony under the excited-utterance hearsay exception, (2) excusing a juror mid-trial for failure to disclose information during voir dire, (3) collecting the parties’ jury panel information sheets following jury selection and placing them under seal, or (4) sentencing the defendant as a habitual offender.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Other Orders

Robertson v. Houston, Mississippi Public School District, 2020-CA-931-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Hardin v. Hardin, 2020-CA-1314-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Butler v. State, 2021-CA-337-COA (granting State’s motion to dismiss for lack of appealable judgment)
Evans v. State, 2021-TS-1423-COA (allowing appeal to proceed without prejudice to State’s ability to rebut presumption that notice of appeal was timely)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 8, 2022

There are six opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals today on a wide range of topics, including a holding that a defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, until thirty-one days after service of process constituted “excusable neglect” in light of the COVID shutdowns at the time.

Hamer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (Criminal – Felony/Evidence/Rule 403/Golden Rule)
Affirming conviction on two counts of capital murder and armed robbery and sentence to life in prison without parole, holding primarily that (1) wiretapped phone calls between the convicted and his father, whose drug trafficking enterprise the convicted had worked for, were admissible to show motive and tell “the complete story” to the jury, (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish nexus between the killing and the underlying felony to constitute capital murder, (3) and there was no impermissible Golden Rule argument at closing.
(Judge Westbrooks wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

Crockett v. State, 2021-CP-00022-COA (Civil – PCR/Time Bar)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the claim of an involuntary guilty plea was both time-barred and meritless.
(All judges concurred, Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Erves v. Hosemann, 2020-CA-00467-COA (Civil – Property/Daubert)
Affirming chancellor’s decision denying relief in an action for an injunction to stop the use of a driveway and for monetary damages, holding that the petitioners failed to establish legal title to the subject property and specifically holding that the defendants’ expert witnesses were qualified and that the chancellor’s ruling was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: Appellants got dinged on their Daubert challenge for arguing reliability on appeal when the only issue raised at the trial court was the experts’ qualifications:


(All judges concurred, Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2020-CP-00930-COA (Civil – Other/Default/Excusable Neglect)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant showed excusable neglect when it sought an extension of time to answer the complaint thirty-one days after being served and holding that the circuit clerk did not err by correcting a mistake and removing an entry of default, but holding that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a).

ADDENDUM – COVID AND THE LAW: The defendant casino blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for being late to respond to the complaint. The casino was served with process on March 9, 2020, three days before the governor of Kentucky (where the casino’s counsel is located) issued a state of emergency and one week before Governor Reeves entered an order in Mississippi closing the casino. The casino asserted that these restrictions made it difficult to gather information from the closed casino in order to prepare and answer. The circuit court granted the late-filed extension request “in light of the current pandemic and government orders restricting operations and travel.” The court of appeals held that this was not an abuse of the circuit court’s broad discretion in this realm. In this case: COVID shutdown in March 2020 = “excusable neglect.”
(All judges concurred, Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without written opinion.)

Everett v. Dykes, 2020-CP-01331-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Recusal/Rule 48B)
Dismissing a pro se appeal of an order denying a motion for recusal of the circuit judge, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the procedure required by Rule 48B of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a recusal motion.
(Judge Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Rives v. Ishee, 2020-CA-01328-COA (Civil – Contract/Statute of Limitations)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs’ second lawsuit was time-barred because they did not file suit until more than three years after they learned they would receive no money from the restaurant and the statute of limitations was not tolled during the first lawsuit because it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court of appeals also held that the remedy of quantum meruit was inapplicable because there was a contract between the parties.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee.)

Other Orders

Westmoreland v. State, 2020-KA-00509-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Winters v. State, 2020-KA-00809-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Complete 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