Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In June 2004, Victor Jones pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery and was sentenced to two consecutive twenty-year terms in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Jones filed a notice of appeal, which was dismissed for failure to pay the costs of appeal. In December 2004, Jones filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) which was later denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. In April 2011, Jones filed a second motion for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed by the trial court because the motion was time-barred and barred as a successive writ. The trial court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims because Jones had not sought permission from the Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the motion for post-conviction relief was time-barred and find that the motion also is barred based on res judicata. However, the Court found that the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's claims. View "Jones v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

David Waits was indicted by a grand jury on one count of deliberate-design murder of Wavious McGee. The indictment also charged him with a sentence enhancement for using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury found Waits guilty of manslaughter. According to the sentencing order, the trial judge sentenced Waits to twenty years imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Waits' manslaughter conviction and his twenty-year sentence for that conviction. But, because the jury did not specifically find Waits guilty of using a firearm in the commission of the crime of manslaughter, the Court reversed the trial court's sentence enhancement and remanded this case to the trial court, with the instruction that the gun enhancement notation be struck from the sentencing order. View "Waits v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Clayton Paul Bateman was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years' imprisonment. He appealed his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Bateman's convictions and sentences. View "Bateman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

At the trial of this medical-negligence case, plaintiff’s only expert abandoned his pretrial opinion, and over the objection of the defendant, testified to a new opinion that was never disclosed in discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversed in part and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Cleveland v. Hamil " on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Nina Buckhalter for culpable-negligence manslaughter after she gave birth to a stillborn baby girl. The circuit court dismissed the indictment, finding certain language in the manslaughter statute to be “vague and ambiguous,” when applied to “a woman who has caused the miscarriage or stillbirth of her unborn child.” The State appealed. Because the Supreme Court found the indictment was fatally flawed, it affirmed its dismissal without reaching the issue addressed by the circuit court. View "Mississippi v. Buckhalter" on Justia Law

William Antonio Avery was convicted of selling cocaine and felony fleeing. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Avery argued the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to sequester the witnesses at the post-trial hearing. Finding no reversible error, the Court affirmed Avery’s conviction and sentence. View "Avery v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant David Campbell was convicted of fondling a minor over whom he held a position of trust or authority under Mississippi Code Section 97-55-23(2) (Rev. 2006). The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the State failed to prove that Campbell occupied a position of trust or authority as defined by the statute. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court found no merit in Campbell's claims of error, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Campbell's conviction and sentence. View "Campbell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Defendant Carlos Taylor appealed his sentence of life without parole. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Taylor under Miss. Code Ann. Section 99-19-83, because the prosecution failed to prove all essential elements under the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing Taylor under Section 99-19-83. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Taylor's sentence. View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A group of property owners filed suit against the Diamondhead Fire Protection District (DFPD) board of commissioners and several current and former DFPD officers, seeking declaratory judgment that a fee charged for fire-protection services was an impermissible tax. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the DFPD. The property owners appealed, challenging: (1) whether the monthly fee is an illegal tax; and (2) whether the power to tax should be construed narrowly. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court correctly decided that the challenged fees for DFPD's services were lawful. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Alfonso v. Diamondhead Fire Protection District" on Justia Law

Defendant Ryan Scott Young appealed his convictions for felony driving under the influence (DUI) third offense, and retaliation against a public servant. On appeal to the Supreme Court he argued: (1) that the indictment did not include an essential element of the crime of retaliation; (2) that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of the crime of retaliation; (3) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on the DUI charge; and (4) that the verdict on the DUI charge was against the weight of the evidence and he was entitled to a new trial. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded all of Young's arguments were without merit, and affirmed his convictions and sentences. View "Young v. Mississippi" on Justia Law