Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Alfonso v. Gulf Publishing Co., Inc.
Two appeals were consolidated from chancery-court cases. In the first case, Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association, Inc. sued Thomas Alfonso, III, and Anne Scafidi Cordova (d/b/a Bay Jourdan Publishing Co., "BJP") for breach of a contract to publish "The Diamondhead News." In 1997, the chancery court entered a preliminary injunction order preventing BJP from publishing "The Diamondhead News," selling advertising for the paper, collecting or disposing of advertising revenues derived from the publication of the paper, and interfering with the printing, publication, or distribution of "The Diamondhead News." The chancery court also found that an arbitration clause in the publishing contract was inapplicable to the lawsuit. The chancery court denied BJP's two subsequent motions to compel arbitration of the breach-of-contract dispute. BJP appealed the chancery court's denial of arbitration. In the second case, BJP sued Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing Co., Inc. (d/b/a The Sun Herald) for intentional interference with the publishing contract. Gulf Publishing filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Gulf Publishing and directed the entry of a final judgment as to Gulf Publishing pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). BJP appealed that grant of summary judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court's order denying BJP’s second motion to compel arbitration because the issue was ruled upon previously, and no appeal was taken. Finding genuine issues of material fact for trial, the Court reversed the chancery court's order granting summary judgment to Diamondhead and Gulf Publishing, and remanded that case for further proceedings.
View "Alfonso v. Gulf Publishing Co., Inc." on Justia Law
McCain v. Mississippi
Defendant Kevin Dale McCain was convicted of robbery. On writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court addressed the permissibility vel non of a post-conviction amendment of Defendant's indictment to include habitual-offender status. In 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Two days later, the Supreme Court's mandate issued in "Gowdy v. Mississippi," (56 S.3d 540 (Miss. 2011)), which held that a a post-conviction amendment of an indictment to include habitual-offender status "was prohibited[,]"such that the “enhanced portion” of Gowdy's sentence was vacated and his case was remanded for resentencing. Defendant's Motion for Rehearing on appeal contended that "Gowdy should apply to this case" and requested that the Court of Appeals "vacate [his] sentence and . . . have him resentenced under [Section] 97-3-73." The Court of Appeals denied Defendant's motion. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that in considering a post-conviction amendment of an indictment to include habitual offender status, the requirements of "a fair opportunity to present a defense" and no "unfai[r] surprise" are assessed on a case-by-case basis. In Defendant's case, both requirements were satisfied. The Court therefore affirmed Defendant's conviction for robbery and sentence of life as a habitual offender in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, without eligibility for parole or probation.
View "McCain v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Wilson v. Mississippi
Defendant William Matthew Wilson was indicted in a multiple-count indictment for capital murder with the underlying felony of child abuse and for a separate count of felonious child abuse. He pled guilty to capital murder and to the separate child-abuse count. Defendant purportedly waived a sentencing hearing before a jury. He was sentenced to death for capital murder and to twenty years for felonious child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's death sentence, with the mandate issuing on December 10, 2009. Defendant timely filed his motion seeking post-conviction collateral relief. The Attorney General filed a response, and Defendant filed a reply to that response. Upon review of the claims raised, the Supreme Court found that Defendant established that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on certain grounds; therefore, his PCR motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
In The Matter of the Estate of Baumgardner
This case involved fifteen years of litigation relating to two testamentary trusts. Plaintiff Veronica Baumgardner McKee Arrington (Arrington), claimed that the trustee of both trusts, William Ready, mismanaged the trusts' property, improperly allocated the trusts' funds, and wrongfully refused to render an accounting of the trusts' assets. The Chancery Court of Lauderdale County found that the trustee had acted properly and within his discretion in managing the trusts and that the trustee should not be required to render an accounting. Aggrieved, Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Chancery Court. "A chancellor’s factual findings will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." If Plaintiff's assertions were correct, then almost $225,000 difference between the chancellor's total and Plaintiff's purported total amounts to an abuse of discretion by the court. The Supreme Court noted that it was unclear from the record how Plaintiff arrived at her allegations. Accordingly, the Court found find that upon remand, a formal accounting of the decedent's expenses should be conducted and that her conservatorship should be reimbursed for any expenses relating to her care and maintenance.
View "In The Matter of the Estate of Baumgardner" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Mississippi Supreme Court, Trusts & Estates
Beal v. Mississippi
Defendant Dennis Jerome Beal allegedly offered Lieutenant Tommy Jones, a Madison County Sheriff’s Department deputy, $10,000 in hopes that Jones could make Defendant's pending drug charge disappear. On April 28, 2010, Defendant was indicted by grand jury for bribery as a habitual offender. A Madison County jury unanimously found Defendant guilty of bribing Jones, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison as a nonviolent habitual offender. Defendant appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly permitted the State to amend Defendant's indictment before trial. Nevertheless, the trial court committed prejudicial error regarding admission of a videotape, as it became relevant to the case once the State opened the door by eliciting testimony about its contents. The Court found that Defendant's arguments regarding opening and closing statements and entrapment were without merit. Therefore, Defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed, and this case was remanded for a new trial. View "Beal v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
King v. Mississippi
On September 17, 2008, Defendant Joshua King and Terrance Stanton were indicted for two counts of capital murder. Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial in July 2009. In 2010, Defendant was retried in the Circuit Court of Bolivar County for the deaths of Alfred Quong and So Ha Jung during the commission of a robbery. The jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and ordered that his sentences run concurrently. Defendant appealed his conviction. Finding no error, the Supreme Court found that the jury verdict and life sentence in the custody of the MDOC should have been affirmed.
View "King v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Jermell Victory v. State of Mississippi
Defendant Jermell Victory was convicted for the murder of Darron Sykes and for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. The circuit court sentenced Defendant, respectively, to life and ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant raised one issue on appeal: "whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant Jermell Victory's proposed jury instruction on eyewitness identification where said instruction embodied his theory of the case." Upon review of that instruction, the Supreme Court found that the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's proposed jury instruction.
View "Jermell Victory v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law
Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. v. Hobson
This case came before the Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County in which the circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part the county court's grant of summary judgment for Plaintiff James Hobson, Jr. Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC, and Priority Trustee Services of Mississippi, LLC (collectively, Chase) appealed the circuit court's affirmance of their liability. Plaintiff cross-appealed the circuit court's order that vacated the county court's award and ordered trial on damages. The dispute arose from Plaintiff's purchase of real property at a foreclosure sale. He tendered a cashier's check to Chase's agent, for which Chase gave Plaintiff a receipt. Approximately two weeks later, Chase returned Plaintiff's check and refused to tender a deed to the property, stating that the foreclosure sale had been cancelled due to the original borrower's reinstatement. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, arguing that Defendants breach was grossly negligent, and requested actual and punitive damages along with attorney's fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the borrower's alleged reinstatement prior to the foreclosure sale created a genuine issue of dispute regarding Chase's liability, and, therefore, the Court held that the circuit court erred in affirming the county court's grant of summary judgment as to liability. Accordingly, the Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remand to the county court for further proceedings.
View "Chase Home Finance, L.L.C. v. Hobson" on Justia Law
Mississippi Transportation Comm’n v. Montgomery
Defendant Sylvia Montgomery filed suit against the Mississippi Transportation Commission (Commission) in the Circuit Court of Yazoo County after she was injured when her car struck a pothole in the northbound lane of Interstate 55 near Vaughan. The Commission filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming it was exempt from liability under several provisions of the Mississippi Torts Claim Act (MTCA). The court denied the Commission's motion. A three-justice panel of the Supreme Court granted the Commission's petition for interlocutory appeal. Upon review of the parties' briefs and the record, the Court found the trial court erred by not determining whether the duty to warn of a dangerous condition on the highway is a discretionary duty under the "public-function" test. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's denial of the Commission's motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
View "Mississippi Transportation Comm'n v. Montgomery" on Justia Law
Kelly v. Mississippi
In 2009, Defendant Michael Kelly was charged with reckless driving, found guilty, and fined $114. Arising out of these same facts, a grand jury handed down a two-count indictment against Defendant several months later: count I charged Defendant with the aggravated assault of Tiffany Walker (by hitting Walker while driving his truck); count II charged Defendant with felony malicious mischief for the destruction of an outdoor ice machine. Defendant moved for dismissal of his indictment, asserting his double-jeopardy rights. The trial court denied his motion. Aggrieved, Defendant filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from an Interlocutory Order with the Supreme Court. A three-justice panel of the Court granted Defendant's petition to assess his double jeopardy claim. Finding that reckless driving was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault for double-jeopardy purposes: "[t]o prove reckless driving, it is not necessary to prove the elements of injury or attempt to injure. Since each of these charges contains separate elements, the prosecution of [Defendant] for aggravated assault does not violate his double-jeopardy rights, and that contention is without merit."
View "Kelly v. Mississippi" on Justia Law