Tag: Retroactive Joinder

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 6, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There are several felonies, a wrongful death summary judgment case, a workers’ compensation intoxication case, a wills and estate case, and a few PCR cases. Interestingly enough, the last two PCR cases resulted in voting-line-soup pluralities.

Carr v. State, 2024-KA-00185-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of fondling and sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying funding for a defense expert, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony about other alleged prior bad acts, that one conviction of fondling did not merge with the conviction of sexual battery, and that the indictment was not insufficient for the defendant to prepare an adequate defense.
(9-1-0: St. Pe’ opinion; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Smith v. State, 2024-KA-00162-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of ten counts of possession of child pornography but reversing convictions of two counts of sexual battery, holding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the sexual battery convictions, but that the doctrine of retroactive misjoinder did not require reversal of the other convictions and remanded to reconsider sentencing.
(10-0: Weddle opinion)

Good v. Sanders, 2023-CA-00669-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a wrongful death case where a pedestrian was struck and killed by a driver, holding that there was no evidence that the defendant breached any duty owed to the pedestrian and that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in not recusing herself.
(7-3*-0: Lawrence opinion; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Weddle and St. Pe’ and joined in part by McCarty; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Ruffin v. State, 2024-CA-00867-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion where the petitioner failed to include a supporting affidavit with her PCR motion and acknowledged at her plea hearing that she was freely and voluntarily admitting her guilt.
(9-1-0: McDonald opinion; Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Estate of Anderson: Brown v. Fitzgerald, 2023-CA-01131-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision setting aside a deed and ordering conveyance pursuant to the will, holding that substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s findings that the testator suffered from a weakness of intellect and the consideration for the deed was grossly inadequate.
(10-0: Wilson opinion)

Nicolaou v. State, 2023-CP-01007-COA (Civil – PCR)
Vacating the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion as successive because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
(10-0: Carlton opinion)

Ladner v. Hinton Homes LLC, 2024-WC-00941-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision that a claim was not compensable under the intoxication provision, holding that substantial evidence supported the MWCC’s finding that the claimant failed to prove that intoxication was not a contributing cause of the accident.
(8-2-0: Carlton opinion; Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Taylor v. State, 2023-CA-00738-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that although the sentence exceeded the maximum the PCR motion was barred by the statute of limitations.
(3-2-5: Wilson principal opinion; Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and in the result, joined by Emfinger, Weddle, and Set. Pe’, and joined in part by Westbrooks and McCarty; McDonald dissented without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Barnes, Carlton, Westbrooks, and McDonald.)

Underwood v. State, 2024-CP-00423-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the claims that the petitioner’s plea was involuntary and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance.
(4-1-4: McCarty principal opinion; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Wilson, Emfinger, and St. Pe’; Weddle did not participate.)

Other Orders

  • Nailer v. State, 2023-KA-00627-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of June 28, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down eight opinions today covering a lot of territory without a single dissent. There is an appeal of summary judgment in a slip and fall case, the reversal of summary judgment in an MTCA case, a motion to compel arbitration case, two wills and estates cases, a criminal appeal, and a few PCR cases.

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that though it was not a barred successive motion but that it lacked merit.
(10-0)

Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (Civil – Negligence/Premises Liability/Slip and Fall)
Affirming summary judgment in a premises liability case, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on the issue of breach where the plaintiff slipped in a puddle on the floor of a store but did not know how long it had been there and failed to prove that the store was responsible for the substance or had actual knowledge of the substance on the floor, or that the two minutes the substance had been on the floor gave the store constructive knowledge.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is the meat of the opinion’s reasoning on the constructive notice issue:

Towns v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01364-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding that the County was entitled to “premises immunity” and “weather immunity” under the MTCA in a case where the plaintiff was injured when he drove into a culvert that had washed out, holding (1) that weather immunity did not apply because there was evidence that the County had knowledge that the culvert had deteriorated and thus weather was not the “sole” cause of the culvert washout and (2) that premises immunity did not apply because there was evidence that the condition on the premises was caused by the County.
(10-0) (Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Roberson v. State, 2020-CA-01208-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McDonald, and joined by Judge McCarty in Part, urging more objective guidance for reevaluating recanted testimony.)

South Central Heating Inc. v. Clark Construction Inc., 2021-CA-00285-COA (Civil – Contract/Arbitration)
Affirming the circuit court’s order granting arbitration, holding that the moving party did not waive arbitration by including an alternative complaint for damages in the same pleading in which it moved to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, applying for a default, responding to a motion for summary judgment filed on the arbitration issue, and responding to motion to file a third-party complaint.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Practice Point – The Court of Appeals noted that at every turn the party seeking arbitration asserted and reserved the right to arbitration.

Additionally, if a party lets you off the mat on an entry of default after your answer to their motion to compel arbitration/complaint that they obtained after waiting six week, consider not fighting their motion to compel arbitration tooth-and-nail.

Taylor v. Tolbert, 2021-CA-00900-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Revocation by Destruction)
Affirming the chancery court’s application of the presumption of revocation by destruction, holding that the beneficiary under the will who petitioned to probate a copy of the will had not rebutted the presumption of revocation by destruction by clear and convincing evidence.
(10-0) (Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (Criminal – Felony/Retroactive Joinder/Character Evidence)
Affirming convictions of aggravated assault, kidnapping, and rape, and conviction as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on each count to be served consecutively, holding that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial under the doctrine of retroactive joinder and that the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by the admission of character evidence related to prior incidents with the victim. In response to arguments raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant was not due a new trial because of actual innocence, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, or ineffective assistance.
(10-0)

Estate of Neill v. Earls, 2021-CA-00177-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s order instructing the executor to revise an “executor’s deed” providing the for the transfer of the decedent’s property, holding that the language of the devise at issue was ambiguous and that the chancellor’s construction of the distribution was not supported by substantial evidence, and further holding that evidentiary record was insufficient to determine the intent of the testator so the case was remanded to allow the parties to provide additional extrinsic evidence of intent.
(9-0) (Judge Lawrence concurred in result only without separate written opinion. Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Other Orders

Wall v. Wall, 2020-CA-01182-COA (denying rehearing)
Pujol v. State, 2022-TS-00024-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely for lack of appealable judgment)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00298-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely for lack of appealable judgment)

Hand Down List