Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lisa Sandlin was convicted of murder for the death of her stepson Kirk Sandlin, for which she was sentenced to a term of life in prison. Sandlin appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing Lisa’s husband Sammy Sandlin to testify for the State; and (2) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded the first issue was barred from review. But the record was insufficient to consider two of her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, Sammy’s testimony and a 911 call, on direct appeal. Thus, the Court dismissed those two claims without prejudice to Lisa’s right to bring these claims later in a properly filed motion for post-conviction relief. View "Sandlin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Kenton McNeese appealed the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment and Other Relief. This Rule 60(b) motion was filed with respect to a judgment of divorce from which he already had perfected an appeal. At that time, his first appeal was pending with the Supreme Court. In response, his former wife Katherine (“Katye”), filed a motion to dismiss and requested that Kenton be required to pay attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied Kenton’s motion for relief and granted Katye’s motion to dismiss and request for attorneys’ fees. The trial court ruled that the Rule 60(b) motion was not timely and that the court lacked jurisdiction “due to the pendency of the case’s appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. . . .” The trial court also found that Kenton’s motion was frivolous and without substantial justification and that it was interposed for delay and harassment and, therefore, imposed a $1,000 sanction against Kenton to be applied toward Katye’s attorneys’ fees. Finding that the trial court erroneously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Kenton’s Rule 60(b) motion, but concluding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Kenton Hal McNeese v. Katherine J. McNeese (Graves)" on Justia Law

Anthony Tyrone Thomas was convicted of aggravated assault and of being a felon in possession of a weapon, for which he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without parole as a habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, and the Supreme Court granted Thomas's petition for writ of certiorari. Because the Supreme Court found that Count II of Thomas's indictment did not charge him with a crime, it reversed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a weapon and dismissed the indictment in Count II. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Thomas v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Circuit Court Judge for the Thirteenth District Eddie H. Bowen failed to disclose a conflict to the parties in a civil lawsuit and failed to rule on counsel's motion to recuse made after the conflict was discovered. The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance recommended that Judge Bowen be publicly reprimanded and assessed $200 in costs. After review of the record, the Supreme Court found that the recommended sanctions were insufficient. The Court ordered that Judge Bowen be publicly reprimanded, fined $500, and assessed $200 in costs. View "Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Felicia Rogers Thomas and Thomas Johnson, Jr. appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of William Pace, M.D. in a medical-malpractice suit they filed against the doctor. The Johnsons' claim stemmed from a surgical procedure Dr. Pace had performed on Felicia Johnson. Dr. Pace filed his Answer and Defenses, denying any negligence. On the same day, Dr. Pace served his first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the Johnsons. One interrogatory requested that the Johnsons identify any medical experts they intended to call as witnesses at trial, along with the proposed opinions of those experts. In their response, the Johnsons stated that they had not yet identified an expert to be called as a witness at trial. Dr. Pace then served his first requests for admission and second requests for production of documents to the Johnsons. In response, the Johnsons admitted that they did not have a report from a qualified medical expert stating that Dr. Pace had breached the standard of care applicable to him in any way in his care and treatment of Felicia. Dr. Pace then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Johnsons had failed to produce any expert testimony to support their claim. The Johnsons moved to quash Dr. Pace's motion, arguing it was premature, because no scheduling order had been entered in the case and no deadline for designating an expert witness had been established. The Johnsons did not respond to the substantive allegations of Dr. Pace's motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered its order granting Dr. Pace's motion for summary judgment. Finding no error in the trial court's grant of summary judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Johnson, Jr. v. Pace" on Justia Law

George Neville filed a petition for modification of a final judgment of divorce seeking to have his ex-wife, Tina Blitz, pay their daughter's college expenses. The chancellor ordered the parties to divide the college expenses equally, after scholarships and a monthly housing stipend from the Post-9/11 GI Bill were deducted. George, who had assigned his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his daughter, appealed arguing the chancellor erred by dividing the monthly housing stipend between Tina and himself. The chancellor found that George should take credit for the payment of the daughter's tuition, fees, and books from the Post-9/11 GI Bill, but not the monthly housing stipend. He ordered that the housing stipend be taken off the top , along with the daughter's scholarships, before the remaining expenses were divided between George and Tina. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the chancellor's allocation of the monthly housing stipend was a violation of 38 U.S.C. 3319(f)(3) because it constituted division of the benefit between parties in a civil proceeding. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the chancellor to modify the order to give George credit for all benefits from the Post-9/11 GI Bill. View "Neville v. Blitz" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint against Municipal Court Judge Robert Fowlkes following a verbal altercation he had with a probation officer outside the courtroom. The Commission and Judge Fowlkes filed a joint motion asking the Court to approve agreed-upon sanctions of a public reprimand and costs of $200. The Supreme Court agreed that Judge Fowlkes should be publicly reprimanded and assessed $200 for the costs of proceedings, and the Court found he also should be fined $1,000. View "Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Fowlkes" on Justia Law

John Wrenn pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) Mississippi’s concealed-weapon statute precluded his conviction; and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because Wrenn's conviction was the result of a guilty plea, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. View "Wrenn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Frederick Wilson wounded one person and killed another when he fired gunshots at the decedent's car. Wilson was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and one count of murder. Wilson appealed his convictions, alleging the trial court erred: (1) by sustaining the State's relevance objections during his cross-examination of the wounded victim; and (2) by admitting into evidence his first two statements to law-enforcement authorities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's convictions and sentences. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Minor Nicholas Proulx was injured in a car accident and treated for his injuries at Memorial Hospital at Gulfport. Nicholas' parents Timothy and Hope Proulx obtained letters of guardianship and petitioned the chancery court for authority to compromise and settle Nicholas' personal injury claim. The guardians also asked the court to dismiss claims against the settlement proceeds made b several medical providers, including Memorial. Memorial appealed the dismissal of its claim against the settlement. Because Memorial had no assignment, lien or other legal right to payment from the settlement proceeds, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court's dismissal of Memorial's claim. View "Memorial Hospital at Gulfport v. Proulx" on Justia Law