Happy New Year! The Mississippi Court of Appeals wasted no time getting up and running. They kicked the year off with six opinions. Amidst the PCR opinions is a couple of noteworthy tales of caution for litigants pertaining to discovery and appellate procedure.
Seals v. State, 2024-KM-00448-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of simple assault, holding that that the evidence was sufficient and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-1-0: Weddle for the Court; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; Emfinger did not participate)
Simoneaux v. State, 2024-CP-01127-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of the petitioner’s fourth PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred, successive, and failed to to demonstrate that a statutory exception applies.
(9-0: Weddle for the Court; McCarty did not participate)
Patton v. MDOC, 2024-CA-00699-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal for the plaintiff’s failure to cooperate in discovery, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion dismissing the claim as a sanction for violating the rules of discovery and the court’s order compelling discovery.
(8-2: Emfinger for the Court; Westbrooks and McDonald dissented without writing)
Vasques v. State, 2024-CP-00852-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in summarily dismissing the motion as time-barred and that the circuit court’s err in not transferring the motion to the proper venue was harmless because the motion lacked merit.
(7-3-0: McDonald for the Court; Wilson and Weddle concurred in part and in the result without writing’ Emfinger concurred in result only without writing)
Polk v. State, 2025-CP-00260-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motions, holding that several of the claims were waived or procedurally barred and that the dismissal was proper because the petitioner raised no challenge to the validity of his guilty plea.
(9-0: McDonald for the Court; Weddle did not participate)
Ford Motor Company v. Bingham, 2024-CA-01056-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment granting a motion to dismiss the appeal and awarding attorney’s fees, holding that the appellant did not comply with the cost bond requirement, that the “appeal bond with supersedeas” did not qualify as a cost bond, that the appellant did not demonstrate “extenuating circumstances” to excuse the jurisdictional defect, affirming the award of attorney’s fees, and denying the motion to dismiss the instant appeal.
(10-0: Barnes for the Court)
Other Orders
- Taylor v. State, 2023-CT-00738-SCT (denying motion to vacate opinion and dismiss appeal and motion for rehearing)
- Thomas v. State, 2023-CT-01151-COA (denying rehearing)
- Cooper v. State, 2024-KA-00592-COA (denying rehearing)
- Ruffin v. State, 2024-CA-00867-COA (denying rehearing)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 