The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One addresses whether additional discovery may be had or the record supplemented at the circuit court level on appeal from a decision of a governing authority of a municipality or county. The other is a circuit clerk v. drug court dispute over the collection of drug court participation fees.
Board of Supervisors of Jackson County, Mississippi v. Qualite Sports Lighting, LLC, 2020-IA-01301-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing and remanding circuit court’s order directing the supplementation of the record in an appeal of a decision of the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, holding that the 2018 amendments to the process of appealing a decision of the governing authority of a municipality or county as laid out in section 11-51-75 (Rev. 2018) of the Mississippi Code Annotated did not allow Qualite, who was appealing the board’s decision to the circuit court, to conduct discovery or go beyond the record that was originally before the board.
(All justices concurred.)
Thompson v. DeSoto County Intervention Court, 2020-CA-00956-SCT (Civil – Other/Drug Court)
The circuit court entered an order directing that drug court fees be paid to the circuit clerk’s office. The circuit clerk filed a petition to set aside or rescind that order, arguing that the drug court participation fee was not a criminal fine or fee and that the circuit clerk’s office was not compensated for processing the participation fee, and want not able to take a cut of it, since she had no statutory duty to do collect the participation fee. The circuit court denied the motion and the circuit clerk appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the drug court is a criminal court and that fees obtained during its proceedings are criminal fees. Therefore, it is the circuit clerk’s duty to collect drug/intervention court fees under section 9-1-43(5) of the Mississippi Code Annotated.
(Justice King concurred in result only without separate written opinion. Justice Chamberlin did not participate.)
NOTE – The circuit clerk asked for compensation on appeal. The supreme court addressed that request, but did not award compensation because the scope of review was limited to the clerk’s petition which did not seek compensation and the circuit court’s order on that petition:
Other Orders
Hartzler v. Bosarge, 2019-CT-01606-SCT (lifting the suspension of certiorari proceedings and granting the Rule 42 (MRAP) Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal insofar as the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed as moot)
Belk v. State, 2020-CT-00465-SCT (denying cert)
Watson v. State, 2020-CT-00789-SCT (denying cert)
Sutton v. State, 2020-CP-01322-SCT (denying rehearing)
Humphrey v. Steve Holts, 2021-CT-00046-SCT (granting cert)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 