Mississippi Supreme Court – Page 14 – Mississippi Appeals Blog

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

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of March 3, 2022

I am posting these summaries on a delay because I spent yesterday at Legoland in Florida with my family. While I was strolling through Bricksburg and riding a Duplo block safari truck, the Mississippi Supreme Court unleashed 126 pages of opinions in just four cases. Only one decision was unanimous and the others were 7-2, 5-4, and 5-4, each of which drew thoughtful dissents.

The more contentious cases were a death penalty post-conviction claim, a case of first impression applying the federal vacatur rule, and a decision addressing the limitations period in a thorny implied indemnity case.

Jones v. State, 2021-KA-00275-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Manslaughter)
Affirming conviction for manslaughter, holding (1) the circuit court did not err by not requiring the jury to specify whether its verdict was based on heat of passion or imperfect self-defense because those are both factual theories encompassed within section 97-3-35, (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, and (3) dispersing the jury for lunch was within the circuit court’s discretion and no timely request to sequester was made.
(All participating justices concurred.)

Batiste v. State, 2019-CA-00283-SCT (en banc) (Civil – Death Penalty – Post Conviction/Recusal/Gladney)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of Bastiste’s motion for recusal based on an argument that the circuit judge’s memory of an alleged conversation with a juror could be relied on in witness-credibility determinations while evaluating the underlying PRC claim and denying the underlying PCR claim, holding (1) that it was speculation that the judge might be a necessary witness in the case, (2) that the Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel did not even attempt to follow the appropriate method for post-verdict juror inquiry laid out in Gladney, and (3) that Batiste’s Six Amendment right to an impartial jury was not violated when the circuit court determined that discussions of the racial composition of the jury were brought about within the jury itself rather than from an extraneous source.
(Justice Kitchens wrote a dissent, joined by Justice King.)

Gamma Healthcare Inc. v. Estate of Grantham, 2019-CT-00913-SCT (en banc) (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the Court of Appeals’ decisions dismissing the case as moot following the untimely death of the claimant, applying federal vacatur rule and vacating the MWCC’s orders to replace the claimant’s septic and HVAC systems, and reversing the MWCC’s award of sanctions.

The vacatur issue was one of first impression in Mississippi. The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision included the following excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court on the vacatur standard:

The United States Supreme Court has held that:

When a civil case becomes moot pending appellate adjudication, “[t]he
established practice . . . in the federal system . . . is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.” United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S. Ct. 104, 106, 95 L. Ed. 36 (1950). . . . Vacatur is in order when mootness occurs through happenstance—circumstance not attributable to the parties—or, . . . , the “unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.” U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U.S., at 23, 115 S. Ct., at 390; cf. id., at 29, 115 S. Ct., at 393 (“mootness by reason of settlement [ordinarily] does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review”).

Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71-72, 117 S. Ct. 1055, 1071, 137 L. Ed.2d 170 (1997) (emphasis added) (first, second, and fifth alterations in original). “Because this practice is rooted in equity, the decision whether to vacate turns on ‘the conditions and circumstances of the particular case.’” Azar v. Garza, 138 S. Ct. 1790, 1792, 201 L. Ed. 2d 118 (2018) (quoting United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466, 478, 36 S. Ct. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387 (1916)). The Supreme Court also has held that:

The point of vacatur is to prevent an unreviewable decision “from spawning any legal consequences,” so that no party is harmed by what we have called a “preliminary” adjudication. Munsingwear, 340 U.S., at 40-41, 71 S. Ct. 104. . . . When happenstance prevents that review from occurring, the normal rule should apply: Vacatur then rightly “strips the decision below of its binding effect,” Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 200, 108 S. Ct. 523, 98 L. Ed. 2d 529 (1988), and “clears the path for future relitigation,” Munsingwear, 340 U.S., at 40, 71 S. Ct. 104.

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 713, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2035, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1118 (2011).
Gamma Healthcare, Inc. v. Estate of Grantham, 2019-CT-00913-SCT at ¶15 (Miss. 2022).

(Justice Randolph wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis.)

Cooley v. Pine Belt Oil Co., Inc., 2019-IA-01835-SCT (en banc) (Civil – Implied Indemnity)
Reversing, on interlocutory appeal, the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on an indemnity claim and rendering judgment in favor of the defendant. Long before this litigation commenced, MDEQ ordered the two sides of this dispute to remediate a gasoline line leak on March 5, 2009. Pine Belt, the landowner, paid for the remediation. Then, in 2015, Pine Belt retained an expert who opined that the leak occurred when the property was owned by the Cooleys.

On April 15, 2016, Pine Belt filed a complaint for implied indemnity against the Cooleys seeking to recover the remediation expenses that Pine Belt incurred in response to MDEQ’s order. The Cooleys filed a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and Pine Belt argued that an implied indemnity claim cannot accrue before a liability party can be identified and because there must be a final, fixed amount. The circuit court denied the motion. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal, reversed the circuit court, and rendered judgment in favor of Pine Belt. The Mississippi Supreme Court specifically held that the statute of limitations began to run when MDEQ ordered the remediation:

Although the amount that Pine Belt was ordered to pay by MDEQ was unliquidated, the MDEQ order legally obligated Pine Belt to pay for present and future cleanup costs which Pine Belt all along believed, in fairness, should be paid by the Cooleys. Because the order placed Pine Belt under a compulsion to pay damages which it believed should be paid by another, this Court finds that all of the elements of implied indemnity were present and the statute of limitations began to run on March 5, 2009, and ended on March 5, 2012. Pine Belt did not file its complaint until April 15, 2016. Thus, Pine Belt’s implied indemnity action is time barred.
Cooley v. Pine Belt Oil Co., Inc., 2019-IA-01835 ¶29 (Miss. 2022) (emphasis added).

(Chief Justice Randolph wrote a partial concurrence, partial dissent, joined by Justice Coleman, Justice Maxwell, and Justice Ishee.)

Other Orders

Grayson v. State, 1998-DP-01782-SCT (denying pro se motion to withdraw motion to carry out execution forthwith)
Powers v. State, 2017-DR-696-SCT (granting motion to seal exhibits from public, but not from opposing counsel)
Fluker v. State, 2020-CT-791-SCT (denying pro se petition for writ of certiorari)
Fields v. State, 2020-KA-1317-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)

Complete Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of February 24, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today: one civil procedure decision on interlocutory appeal, one MDES decision, and two decisions affirming criminal convictions.

University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Jensen, 2020-IA-872-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Statute of Limitations/Service of Process)
Reversing, on interlocutory appeal, the county court’s ruling granting the plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to serve process, holding that the plaintiff did not show good cause where the plaintiff attempted to serve process on an administrative assistant, who accepted service on behalf of UMMC’s CEO, instead of the attorney general. Because the statute of limitations had expired, judgment was rendered in favor of UMMC.

“As neither inadvertence, mistake of counsel, or ignorance of the rules suffice to establish good cause, the county court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that Jensen had shown good cause for an extension of time to serve process under Rule 4(h).”
Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr v. Jensen, 2020-IA-827-SCT (Miss. 2022) (citation omitted).

Mississippi Department of Employment Security v. Dover Trucking, LLC, 2020-CC-1267-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agency/Employment)
Reversing the circuit court’s order that reversed the MDES Board of Review’s decision that the claimant was an “employee” of a trucking company, holding that that the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Williams v. State, 2020-KA-772-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Rebuttal Evidence)
Affirming conviction of one count of sexual battery, holding that the circuit court did not err in admitting State’s rebuttal evidence related to the defendant’s ankle monitor that had not been disclosed prior to trial because that evidence was not within the State’s due diligence/disclosure obligations prior to trial based on the defendant’s pre-trial representations. The supreme court also held that the circuit court did not err in excluding evidence that the minor victim had previously twerked on the school bus and that the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim was meritless.

Williams v. State, 2019-CT-1007-SCT (en banc) (Criminal – Felony/Accomplice Liability)
Affirming, on writ of certiorari, convictions for two counts of conspiracy and two counts of possession with intent to distribute, holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict on accomplice liability rather than constructive possession where an inmate was directing a drug-trafficking ring from prison over the phone and whose home was found to have large amounts of cocaine and marijuana, as well as $93,259 in cash.

Other Orders

Ward v. Cranford, 2020-CT-410-SCT (denying petition for writ of certiorari)
Brown v. State, 2020-M-630 (denying petition for leave to proceed in trial court and for permission to file successive petition for post-conviction collateral relief)
State v. Corrothers, 2021-IA-836-SCT (denying motion for rehearing)
Cooper v. State, 2021-CT-1012-SCT (dismissing pro se “writ of certiorari”)

Hand Down List for February 24, 2022

Mississippi Supreme Court Hand Downs for February 10, 2022

Brown v. State, 2020-KA-1366-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Constructive Possession Instruction)
Affirming a conviction for three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with a sentence of twenty-four years to under the habitual offender statute, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting the State’s jury instruction on constructive possession or in denying the defendant’s proposed instruction on circumstantial evidence.

Copes v. State, 2019-CT-302-SCT (en banc) (Criminal – Felony/Right to Counsel of Choice)
Affirming a conviction for two counts of sexual battery of two minors and a sentence of twenty years, holding that the defendant was not denied his right to his counsel of choice under the Sixth Amendment when his lead counsel was removed during trial from questioning witnesses and making closing arguments due to repeated misconduct including violation of the judge’s orders.

Augustine v. State, 2019-CT-1467-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Impeachment Testimony)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the circuit court did not err by allowing an officer to testify to the content of a prior witness’s statement for impeachment purposes and, assuming arguendo that it was error, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the conviction.

Alexander v. State, 2019-CT-1612-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Habitual Offender Status/Miller Hearing)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a 1998 conviction for capital murder and sentence to life without parole, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to fund a mitigation expert and holding that the defendant was not deprived of his right to have a jury impose his sentence.

Other Orders
1 Denial of a “Motion for Review by Supreme Court of Court of Appeals’ Denial of Attorney’s Fees”
1 Denial of a Cert Petition
1 Denial of a Motion for Rehearing

Complete Hand Down List

BONUS CONTENT

Every so often, one needs to find support for a proposition that is so obvious that a citation is elusive. See generally Orin S. Kerr, A Theory of Law, 16 Green Bag 2d 111 (2012). The supreme court gifted the bar with this pithy statement that will come in handy in the future:

"It is axiomatic that a judge's rulings during trial are to be followed." Copes v. State, No. 2019-CT-00302-SCT (¶ 11) (Miss. 2022)