Tag: Eighth Amendment

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 16, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court took advantage of a slow inning from the Mississippi Court of Appeals and plated five opinions today to answer the COA’s two. These are big cases. There is an inverse condemnation decision, a legal malpractice decision stemming from a workers’ comp claim, a decision on whether Eight Amendment was violated by a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of marijuana by a habitual offender, and a case deciding whether Mississippi courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims stemming from the termination of a former employee of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson in light of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine of the First Amendment.

City of Gulfport, Mississippi v. Cowan Road & Highway 90, LLC, 2020-CA-01286-SCT (Real Property)
Affirming on direct appeal and affirming in part/reversing in part on cross-appeal of an inverse condemnation ruling, holding that (1) the landowners were entitled to reasonable fees and costs because they fell within the purview of section 43-37-9, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees or in reducing the attorney’s hourly rate, (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not awarding prejudgement interest under section 75-17-7, and (4) the circuit court did abuse its discretion by not awarding post judgment interest.
(7-0: Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam did not participate.)

Lairy v. Chandler, 2019-CT-01423-SCT (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals in a legal malpractice claim stemming from a workers’ compensation, holding that the trial court’s award for damages was sufficiently supported by the evidence and that while the plaintiff had to “pass the trial-within-a-trial test” she did not have to satisfy the “exacting statutory requirements” of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act that would have applied to her workers’ compensation claim to pass that test.
(7-2: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice King.)

Russell v. State, 2019-CT-01670-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of marijuana as a habitual offender, holding that “the trial judge followed the letter of the law” and did not have sentencing discretion and that the defendant presented no evidence related to the Solem factors for an Eighth Amendment analysis.
(5-1-3: Chief Justice Randolph specially concurred with separate written opinion, joined by Justice Beam and Justice Ishee, but the Chief did not join the majority opinion. Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice King.)

NOTE – This is a heavy case in terms of public policy, legal analysis, and outcome. The Court of Appeals below split 5-5. Judge Wilson wrote the main dissent, joined by Judge Westbrooks, Just McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge McCarty. The grouping of judges and justices in majority and dissent is interesting as well.

Eubanks v. State, 2020-KM-00110-SCT (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of simple assault domestic violence, holding that there was no violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial or statutory right to speedy trial, that an objection to testimony was waived because it was not asserted at trial, that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, that there was no error in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict, that the jury’s finding that the victim suffered bodily harm was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the State did not violate the defendant’s due process rights by failing to investigate and preserve exculpatory evidence, and that the trial court did not err by giving the State’s simple assault domestic violence jury instruction.
(5-4: Justice Coleman, with his white-hot dissenting pen, wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Kitchens, Justice King, and Justice Ishee.)

Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi v. De Lange, 2021-IA-00159-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing and rendering the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss claims stemming from the termination of the plaintiff, holding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to hear the plaintiff’s claims of wrongful termination, defamation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(9-0)

NOTE – I watched the oral arguments in this case and found it fascinating. It was argued well by both sides, and the bench was thoughtful and fully engaged.

Other Order

Knox v. State, 2014-DR-00849-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

My summaries are late because I spent much of the day lawyering in Smith County this morning.

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of March 10, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. In a case of first impression, the court held that short term rentals through services like Airbnb and VRBO constitute “residential purposes” rather than “commercial purposes” and thus do not violate restrictive covenants barring use of homes for commercial purposes. The court also reversed the judgment of the Mississippi Court of Appeals and reinstated a conviction for witness intimidation in what started as a voter fraud case in Canton, Mississippi.

Ellis v. Ellis, 2020-CA-00691-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce)
Reversing the chancery court’s order distributing marital assets and awarding alimony and attorneys’ fees, holding that the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order that was sought by and in favor of the party who was on the receiving end of a judgment of divorce by default in Texas because the chancery court had previously dismissed a prior, Mississippi complaint for divorce and counterclaim for divorce with prejudice.
(Justice King wrote a special concurrence, agreeing fully with the Court’s decision, but writing that Redd v. Redd (In re Conservatorship of Redd),
No. 2019-CA-01281-SCT, 2021 WL 5368656 (Miss. Nov. 18, 2021) was wrongly decided. This opinion was joined by Justice Beam and joined in part by Chief Justice Randolph.)

Rainey v. State, 2019-CT-01651-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Voter Fraud/Witness Intimidation/Eighth Amendment)
Reversing the Mississippi Court of Appeals’ judgment that had reversed a conviction for witness intimidation and a fifteen-year sentence, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction where there was testimony that the defendant registered two individuals to vote and then gave them $10 for “a round of beer,” later gave one of those individuals a ride to vote and then $10 for lunch, and then, after the voter was questioned by investigators, the defendant visited and confronted the voter about the investigation. The court also held that the fifteen-year sentence did not violate the Eight Amendment.
(Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Coleman.)

Lake Serene Property Owners Association Inc. v. Esplin, 2020-CA-00689-SCT (Civil – Real Property/Restrictive Covenants)
Affirming the chancery court’s finding in a breach of residential covenant case, holding that short-term rentals of private homes through online services such as Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway constitute use for “residential purposes” rather than “commercial purposes” in the absence of definitions of those terms in the covenants and holding that the association’s board of directors did not have authority to amend the bylaws in a manner that restricted the owners’ covenant rights to host short-term rentals.
(Justice Ishee concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Griffis.)

NOTE: This was a case of first impression in Mississippi on the issue of whether short-term rentals through services such as Airbnb constitute “residential purposes.” All nine justices concurred in the holding that short-term rentals do constitute “residential purposes” rather than “commercial purposes.” The court did not dwell on this, but I think it is implicit in the decision that if the covenants had defined “residential purposes” in a way that excluded short-term rentals, or if short-term rentals were otherwise specifically prohibited by the covenants, the result would have been different. In any event, this is a win for hosts and hosting platforms.

Other Orders

Knox v. State, 2014-DR-849-SCT (denying Motion for Leave to File Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and Knox’s First Amended Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief are dismissed and Second Amended Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief is denied)

Ellis v. Ellis, 2020-CA-691-SCT (denying Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Other Relevant Court Proceedings filed by Joseph Dale Ellis, Sr. and Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Texas Court of Appeals’ Memorandum Opinion, Judgment, and Final Mandate and for Inclusion of Same in Appellate Record filed by Joseph Dale Ellis, Sr.)

Atkins v. Moore, 2021-CA-780 (denying a not otherwise not defined “motion for relief”)

Complete Hand Down List