Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James McCoy appealed his convictions and sentences for two counts of armed robbery. McCoy's appellate counsel argues that McCoy's sentences are excessive and the result of vindictiveness, that McCoy was denied a fair trial due to the prosecutor's use of the golden-rule argument, and that McCoy received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. McCoy filed a pro se supplemental brief, raising four additional assignments of error. But finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed McCoy's convictions and sentences. View "McCoy v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In a matter of first impression, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether one wrongfully convicted of a crime and placed in the Intensive Supervision Program, commonly known as house arrest, is entitled to compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -7. Frank Sanders Tipton was convicted of extortion and served time in Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities as well as in the Intensive Supervision Program. After the Court vacated his judgment, Tipton filed a claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and incarceration. The State agreed to pay Tipton for his time served in prison but not for his time in the Intensive Supervision Program. After both sides filed for summary judgment, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the State, which Tipton appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Tipton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

BancorpSouth Bank filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, judicial foreclosure, and other relief against Van Buren Group, LLC, a corporation that organized the construction of thirty condominiums in Oxford. Four purchasers and two members moved for summary judgment, which the chancellor granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the four purchasers; however, it reversed and remanded as to the two members. The Supreme Court granted BancorpSouth’s subsequent petition for writ of certiorari. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that that an issue of material fact existed with respect to the purchasers. Therefore, the Court reversed the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "BancorpSouth Bank v. Brantley, Jr." on Justia Law

David Lee Rice filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Circuit Court, arguing that he had been improperly sentenced to life without parole as a habitual offender after a 1996 conviction for auto burglary. Finding Rice's arguments on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.View "Rice v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Johnny Ray Sims was charged with three counts of aggravated assault, with each count alleging a separate victim. The trial court subsequently accepted the defendant’s best-interest guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault and dismissed the remaining counts. As part of his sentence, Sims was ordered to pay restitution to an alleged victim named in one of the dismissed counts. More than three years later, Sims filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising a claim of illegal sentence, among several other claims. The trial court dismissed Sims’s petition as time-barred and successive, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted Sims’s petition for writ of certiorari to review his claim that restitution related to a dismissed charged was improper. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that in exchange for his plea of guilty, two aggravated-assault charges against Sims were dismissed. The Court found Sims waived any objection to the restitution order: neither Sims nor his attorney ever objected – either at the plea hearing or two weeks later at the sentencing hearing – to the imposition of the restitution or the amount or the distribution of the restitution ordered. "Sims should not now be allowed to complain." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Sims’s petition for post-conviction relief. View "Sims v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The trial court granted plaintiff Karen Richardson’s motion to reinstate a negligence action arising out of a 2001 automobile accident involving a truck owned by defendant Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Richardson’s action had been dismissed for failure to prosecute. Upon review of the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in granting the motion to reinstate. While the statute of limitations did not operate to preclude an evaluation of the merits for equitable relief under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), no valid Rule 60(b) grounds existed for granting relief from the dismissal of the action. The case was appropriately dismissed for failure to prosecute and no extraordinary circumstances were present to justify reinstatement. The judgment of the Circuit Court granting reinstatement was therefore reversed and the case dismissed without prejudice. View "Entergy Mississippi, Inc. v. Richardson" on Justia Law

David "Junior" Kimbrough died in 1998, leaving his entire estate to his long-time girlfriend, Mildred Washington. Matthew Johnson was named executor of the estate. Johnson petitioned the court to probate Kimbrough's will. Contestants filed to contest the will, and no other entries were filed during the next ten years. In September 2008, an entry of appearance was entered on behalf of four remaining contestants, which was followed by an entry of appearance on behalf of Johnson. In 2009, the chancery court denied Executor's Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss, granted Contestants’ motion to compel discovery, granted Contestants’ motion to remove executor, and appointed the chancery clerk of Marshall County as executor. Johnson then filed his motion to dismiss alleging a violation of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h), because Washington was served process almost eleven years after the commencement of the action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but it granted a stay of the proceedings pending petition for interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied. A trial on the matter was held in 2012. After Contestants rested their case, Proponents moved the trial court for dismissal, and the chancellor ultimately granted their motion and dismissed the case. Contestants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising nine issues all pertaining to the validity of the will, and whether the trial court erred in granting Proponents' Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in granting Proponents' Mississippi Rules Civil Procedure 41(b) motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court affirmed the decision of the chancery court.View "Kimbrough v. Estate of David Kimbrough" on Justia Law

Robert Sherman was indicted for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possessing pseudoephedrine and sodium hydroxide with the unlawful intent to manufacture a controlled substance. He was tried and convicted then sentenced to twelve years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with eight years to serve and four years suspended, plus five years of post-release supervision. Sherman appealed, arguing that his conviction: (1) was based upon insufficient evidence; or (2) was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Sherman's conviction and sentence. View "Sherman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Dexter Fulton was convicted for receiving stolen property. The Court of Appeals affirmed Fulton’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. The Supreme Court granted Fulton’s petition for writ of certiorari to determine whether Fulton’s indictment was fatally defective and whether the trial court erred in allowing an amendment of substance to Fulton’s indictment. The Supreme Court found error as to both issues and reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court. The conviction was vacated. View "Fulton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a property-line dispute between neighboring landowners in Lafayette County. Jerry Mize filed suit to confirm title to property described in a recorded corrected warranty deed. Defendants Westbrook Construction Company of Oxford, LLC, Jimmy A. Lewis, Jr., Kay W. Lewis, and Jimmie Waller, answered the complaint, counterclaimed to quiet and confirm their titles, and sought damages for slander of their respective titles. The chancellor found for Defendants and awarded damages and attorneys’ fees on their slander-of-title claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In his petition for certiorari, Mize raised several issues; the Supreme Court's review of this case was limited to whether there was sufficient evidence to support a slander-of-title action. No evidence of record supported a finding that all of the elements of a slander-of-title action were met. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment against Mize for slander of title and the award of damages to Defendants as well as the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming it. The Court affirmed the Chancery Court in all other respects, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Mize v. Westbrook Construction Company of Oxford, LLC" on Justia Law