Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury found Antonio Parker guilty of domestic-violence-based aggravated assault and kidnapping. On appeal, he argued the trial court wrongly denied him a continuance of his trial and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found Parker had shown neither error nor resulting prejudice from the trial court’s denial of his fourth requested continuance. Furthermore, the Court found he did not prove his counsel was constitutionally deficient. View "Parker v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Magnolia, a managed care organization that contracted with the State to provide Medicaid services, applied what it saw as a statutory five percent reduction in Medicaid rates to Mississippi’s fourteen regional mental health providers. The regional providers responded by filing a complaint against Magnolia in which they sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. On February 18, 2020, Magnolia Health Plan, Inc., and Cenpatico Behavioral Health, LLC (collectively, “Magnolia”), filed a timely notice of appeal after a circuit court denied Magnolia’s motion to compel arbitration, and granted a preliminary injunction against it in favor of Defendants, Mississippi’s fourteen regional health commissions. The notice of appeal included both orders. As to the first, the order denying Magnolia’s motion to compel arbitration, at oral argument before the Mississippi Supreme Court panel, Magnolia abandoned the issue. As to the second, the order granting Magnolia’s request for a permanent injunction, the order was not a final, appealable judgment. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded it did not have jurisdiction for further review. View "Magnolia Health Plan, Inc. et al. v. Mississippi's Community Mental Health Commissions, et al." on Justia Law

Cullen Fields was convicted by jury of sexual battery. He appealed, arguing the trial court erroneously denied his right to exercise two of his peremptory strikes during jury selection. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found the trial court did not err by denying the two peremptory strikes Fields sought to exercise. Accordingly, it affirmed Fields' conviction. View "Fields v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A series of cases before the Mississippi Supreme Court began with a motion for post-conviction relief filed by the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (CPCC) on behalf of David Cox, which was assigned No. 2015-DR-00978- SCT. That motion was followed by a series of pleas by Cox to dismiss his appeals, dismiss his counsel, and set an execution date. Subsequent to those pleas and on motion by the State, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the circuit court to determine whether Cox was competent to waive his appeals, and if so, whether his waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made. The trial court held a hearing and ultimately determined Cox was competent to waive appeals, and that he voluntarily and intelligently did so. That decision was followed by CPCC’s filing a notice to appeal that order, which was assigned No. 2021-CA-00515-SCT. The State then filed a motion to dismiss Case No. 2021-CA-00515-SCT, arguing that CPCC lacked standing to appeal. Cox continued to plead that all appeals be dismissed, that his post-conviction counsel be relieved of their duties, and that his execution date be set. CPCC responded in opposition to the State’s motion to dismiss, including filing a brief challenging the judgment of the trial court. After careful consideration of all pleadings, filings, evidence, hearing transcripts, briefs, and exhibits and the arguments and authorities cited by all in the two above-referenced cause numbers, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Cox was competent to waive all of his appeals, and that his waiver was voluntarily and intelligently made. The Supreme Court denied the appeal of that judgment filed by CPCC. View "Cox v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Wayne Self lost the election for Leflore County Mississippi District 4 Supervisor on November 5, 2019. He subsequently petitioned the circuit court to contest the election, alleging numerous violations of Mississippi election law relating to absentee ballots and the results of a voting machine in the Rising Sun Precinct. Self contended he received a majority of the legal votes cast, or, in the alternative, that a new election should have been ordered. After a hearing on the matter, a special judge found that Self’s proposed remedy to invalidate the absentee ballots and the results of a voting machine were not supported by the evidence. Aggrieved, Self appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. After review, the Supreme Court concluded Self failed to prove that: (1) enough illegal votes were cast for Mitchell to change the results or place the results in doubt; or (2) that so many votes are disqualified that the will of the voters cannot be ascertained. "The votes invalidated by the court was 10.8 percent which is less than 30 percent of the total votes cast, so unless fraud, intentional wrongdoing or some other departure from the procedures was present, Self was not entitled to a new election." View "Self v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Senque Wright was convicted by jury of possessing a dirk knife as a convicted felon. The trial court adjudged Wright a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2020) and sentenced him to serve ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Wright’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Wright appealed, arguing the trial court erred by denying Wright’s motion to suppress evidence. Wright argued police lacked reasonable suspicion to support his detention and a patdown search. Wright further argued the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict because the State failed to meet its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright’s knife was a prohibited dirk knife. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the officer had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop, therefore the trial court did not err by denying Wright’s motion to suppress evidence. Further, because the knife found in Wright’s possession was shown to the jury, sufficient evidence was presented for a reasonable juror to conclude that the knife was a dirk knife primarily used for stabbing. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Wright v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

James Ficklin was convicted by jury of taking away a motor vehicle. In 2018, police sergeant Patrick Burt received a call from dispatch concerning a possible switched vehicle tag. Burt testified that he learned that the address associated with the tag was located on Herman Alford Drive in Neshoba County. Burt went to the house at that address, but he found no vehicle there. Burt knew that the owner of the house, Hal Rudolph, had recently passed away, so Burt contacted the owner’s son, Walt Rudolph. Walt confirmed that his father passed away on May 1, 2018, and left behind a 2017 Chevy Z71 Silverado. Walt further testified that the owner of that vehicle would be his father’s heirs, and that this vehicle remained at his father’s house after his father passed away. Walt also testified that the police did in fact contact him and told him that his father’s vehicle might have been missing. Even though Walt was out of town when he learned about his father’s vehicle, a relative verified to Walt that the vehicle was indeed missing from his father’s house. Walt attempted to locate the vehicle through its OnStar capability; however, such efforts were unsuccessful. Weeks later, the vehicle was found at a towing service. After inspection of the vehicle, Burt found Ficklin's driver's license on the console; the vehicle's OnStar module had been removed. Police advised Ficklin of his Miranda rights' Ficklin confessed verbally he had researched online how to disable an OnStar module from a vehicle. At trial, however, Ficklin changed his story, testiflying someone else stole the vehicle and he only got in for a ride. Ficklin denied ever driving the Rudolph vehicle. Ficklin moved to suppress his confessions, but this was denied, and he was ultimately convicted. Finding no arguable issues in the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Ficklin’s conviction and sentence. View "Ficklin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ken Rogers and Costas Pavlou entered into an agreement for Rogers to potentially purchase a concession stand from Pavlou. The concession business, costas Place, would operate at the Mississippi State Fair, The agreement required Rogers to pay Pavlou $35,000 “on or before October 25, 2009.” If that condition was satisfied, Pavlou would give Rogers the option to purchase Costas Place for an additional $35,000 payment “on or before two weeks after the last day of the Mississippi State Fair in the year 2011.” Rogers failed to pay the first $35,000 by the deadline; he first made a payment of $30,225 on November 23, 2009, which Pavlou accepted. Then, from 2009 to 2011, Pavlou paid Rogers an equal share of the net income from Costas Place per the agreement. Nevertheless, all that remained was for Rogers to provide the final $35,000 payment in 2011, but the deadline passed. Rogers contended Pavlou waived the 2011 deadline. Rogers claimed that during his divorce proceeding, Pavlou represented to Rogers that he would extend the deadline for the option to purchase the business until after the divorce proceedings ended. Pavlou countered that, pursuant to the contract, Rogers’s option to purchase the business lapsed when he failed to pay the remaining $35,000. Rogers sued Pavlou asserting breach of contract. Including his claims of waiver, Rogers insisted that Pavlou gave reassurances that he would accept that second installment of $35,000 after Rogers’s divorce was final. The case proceeded to trial, but, in the meantime, Pavlou died, and his estate was substituted as party-defendant. After discovery and litigation but before trial, Pavlou’s estate filed two pretrial motions, a motion to take judicial notice of prior testimony and a motion to exclude parol evidence. Pertinent here, the estate sought to introduce Rogers' testimony at his divorce proceeding; Pavlou’s counsel asked the trial judge to “take judicial notice that he testified [the joint venture agreement] was void, that he swore to the Chancery Court it was void.” On the motion to exclude parole evidence, Pavlou’s counsel argued the 2009 agreement “very specifically and expressly said that modifications had to be in writing, that there would be no verbal alterations to the contract.” The trial court granted Pavlou's motion for a directed verdict, finding Rogers failed to present competent proof that Pavlou waived the payment deadline. Finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "Rogers v. Estate of Pavlou" on Justia Law

Appellant Watkins & Eager, PLLC brought an interlocutory appeal of a circuit court decision. Appellant argued the circuit court erred by denying the firm’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Appellant contended that the provisions at issue within its operating agreement were structurally unambiguous and authorized the firm to terminate any member, including Appellee Richard Lawrence for any reason whatsoever. Furthermore, the firm opposed Appellee’s attempt to shoehorn a "McArn" exception into this dispute. Reviewing the complaint and the PLLC operating agreement central to the dispute, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that Appellee’s breach-of-contract and wrongful-termination claims should have been dismissed. Appellee also pleaded twenty-eight separate additional claims that emanated from the same alleged breach resulting in Appellee’s expulsion from the firm. To this, the Court found Appellant exercised rights found in the agreement, which were not ambiguous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found all claims within the complaint failed as a matter of law. Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to enter a judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Watkins & Eager, PLLC v. Lawrence" on Justia Law

William Greenwood was in the business of salvaging valuable materials from old buildings. Greenwood was insured by Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company through a policy sold by Dixie Specialty Insurance. Greenwood was later sued by adjoining building owners who complained he had damaged their property, and Mesa denied coverage based, in part, on a policy exclusion for demolition work. Greenwood later brought suit against his insurers alleging breach of contract and bad-faith denial of coverage. Greenwood averred that his business was actually “deconstruction” rather than demolition, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the insurers. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court. View "Estate of Greenwood v. Montpelier US Insurance Company, et al." on Justia Law