HB #1020 opponents shriek the new law does not provide a right of appeal for the CCID Court. Spectres of secret prisons and lettres de cachet are raised to the horror of many. Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Jim Kitchens contended such during oral arguments in theSaunders case last week as he tried to torpedo the bill:
Here in Hinds County, if I get convicted in municipal court, I can appeal to county court. It's a statutory court. That can't happen from this CCID court. ...There is no appeal mechanism in this statute that creates this previously unheard of court, there is no reference to any other appeal mechanism in this statute, is there? We'd have to imagine that or do something common law-wise for it to even happen, wouldn't it?
Solicitor General Scott Stewart argued the CCID court was a municipal court and thus subject to the same law governing municipal courts, including the right to appeals. However, Justice Kitchens was having none of it as he repeatedly said the CCID court was not a municipal court. (Start at 1:12:00 in video.)
Fortunately, the Mississippi Constitution and Mississippi Code have something to say about this mess about some mess.
Article VI, Section 172 of the Mississippi Constitution allows the legislature to create "inferior" courts:
The Legislature shall, from time to time, establish such other inferior courts as may be necessary, and abolish the same whenever deemed expedient.
The legislature can create a special environmental court for every county or a special inferior court for just one "slice of Jackson" as Justice Kitchens put it last week if it so desires. Section 172 does not specify what the inferior court has to be as it leaves such discretion to the legislature. Thus the legislature can create and abolish inferior courts at will. The CCID court is as much an inferior court as is a municipal court or other lesser courts.
Article VI, Section 156 of the Mississippi Constitution invests appeals in the Circuit Court unless specified otherwise in the Constitution such as Chancery Courts:The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal in this state not vested by this Constitution in some other court, and such appellate jurisdiction as shall be prescribed by law.
The Mississippi Code has something to say about the matter as well. Section 11-51-95 states:
Like proceedings as provided in Section 11-51-93 may be had to review the judgments of all tribunals inferior to the circuit court, whether an appeal be provided by law from the judgment sought to be reviewed or not. However, petitions for a writ of certiorari to the circuit court for review of a decision of a municipal civil service commission created under Section 21-31-1 et seq. or Section 21-31-51 et seq. shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the entry of the judgment or order of the commission.
The clause "as provided in Section 11-51-93" covers the right of appeal from Justice Court.* If the clause is removed, the statute reads "Like proceedings may be had to review the judgments of all tribunals inferior to the circuit court....."
From and after January 1, 2024, there shall be created one (1) inferior court as authorized by Article 6, Section 172 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, to be located within the boundaries established in Section 29-5-203 for the Capitol Complex Improvement District, hereinafter referred to as "CCID". The CCID inferior court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all preliminary matters and criminal matters authorized by law for municipal courts that accrue or occur, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of the Capitol Complex Improvement District; and shall have the same jurisdiction as municipal courts to hear and determine all cases charging violations of the motor vehicle and traffic laws of this state, and violations of the City of Jackson's traffic ordinance or ordinances related to the disturbance of the public peace that accrue or occur, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of the Capitol Complex Improvement District.
The statute states the CCID court is an inferior court per the language of the Mississippi Constitution. Section 11-51-95 of the Mississippi Code states the Circuit Court can hear all appeals from inferior courts.
Mr. Stewart spent nearly six pages in his brief arguing the CCID court is a municipal court while including this language almost as an afterthought:
Even if the CCID court were deemed not to be a municipal court, it is still a proper inferior court. HB 1020 says that the CCID court is an “inferior court as authorized by ... Section 172” of the state constitution. HB 1020, § 4. So even if the CCID court were not a municipal court, appellate review would still be available by writ of certiorari to the circuit court.
Just because HB #1020 foes think they are righteous does not mean they are right. The legislature created the CCID court as an inferior court under the Mississippi Constitution. The Mississippi Code gives those convicted in this inferior court the right to appeal to Circuit Court regardless of what Johnson et al who are in kill bill mode and that, my friends, is the bottom line.
*"All cases decided by a justice of the peace, whether exercising general or special jurisdiction, may, within six months thereafter, on good cause shown by petition, supported by affidavit, be removed to the circuit court of the county, by writ of certiorari..."
15 comments:
Kitchens is a known blowhard, sunken down in his chair, leaning to one side, hands clasped at the chin, pretentious and learned. Blowhards blow and he blew this one.
But he got his ten minutes of fame.
Ten minutes of fame is right. About the amount of time it should have taken him to do his homework before on this one, since he clearly didn’t learn it in law school.
Do they not have clerks who can read the law?
Yes they have clerks, and most can probably read the law fine. Kitchens knew what the answer was here, he just chose to ignore it and pontificate over the issues that have been used to try this case in the media. As Stewart noted in his comments, this issue was not one that was raised by Johnson and the other's from up north that think there are no problems hre in Jackson so Kitchens' making such a big deal out of it was only his playing to his audience. He is up for reelection next year after all, and in order to keep this gig, he will have to have the support of the black (so-called) 'leadership in Jackson.
Ooops. Maybe that last statement points to the problem with having elected judges rather than appointed - they are playing to the audience rather than following the law.
Just going to be more layers of legal bureaucracy for the lawyers to profit from. And absolutely nothing is going to change. Our tax dollars house, feed, and clothe these criminal parasites. We’ve tried every social justice experiment imaginable since the 1950s. Nothing works!
Then you throw some grifters in the mix like the Lumumbas, and you have the perfect storm.
Kitchens was elected. How did that work out?
Can we get a refund on this guy arguing for 1020?
July 11, 2023 at 5:03 PM
That touches exactly on why I believe an elected judiciary is detrimental to government.
No, 5:34. He actually did a good job of making the arguments that matter. Kitchens trying to draw this in as an issue relative to the constitutionality of 1020 means little or nothing. Kitchens vote was decided before this appeal was ever filed. The job for Stewart and the AGs office was to make the case that the law was constitutional; not pacify Kitchens' ego.
Perhaps Justice Kitchens was simply inviting Mr. Stewart to make the same arguments that were made in the brief he signed. I'm surprised the Solicitor General didn't at least mention that he had briefed the issue, while he was fumbling for a response.
Also, a judge is often most critical of the side they agree with. I believe scientists calling it trying to disprove a hypothesis, in order to prove its validity.
Or maybe no one in court that day had actually read the State's brief. I don't really know. Seems like a lot of people here can read minds and hearts by watching a few minutes of video on something they apparently know little about.
I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise at 6:03 that the Court just hears oral arguments for show, and that the fix was already in. I also disagree with the nutjob that shows up to argue for all judges to be political appointees.
Kitchens’ law clerks have already drafted his dissenting opinion.
One stated rationale for this law is to reduce the backlog of cases in Hinds County Circuit Court. (There are, of course, unstated rationales too.) If decisions of this new court are appealable to the Hinds County Circuit Court, doesn't that create a whole new docket of work for circuit court judges? And won't they just order the results they want when certain cases are appealed, which is another problem this law is supposed to fix?
The Mississippi Supreme Court will uphold this law on purely political grounds, and crime in Jackson will stay the same or get worse. This whole thing is a farce authored by right-wing morons to meet the farce of Jackson's grossly incompetent left-wing leadership.
The farce would be doing nothing.
So the appeal is to the circuit court. They will sit on it for 42 months.
Just another opinion from an old guy (no, I'm not Kitchens or quite that old), but what the legislature CAN do and what it DID do ain't the same thing. Can the legislative branch create the CCID? It certainly appears it can, and reasonably so. Can it do it without certain specificity? To quote Eddie Murphy in "Coming to America," "Ah-ha!" I'd offer that as the list of MS jurists doing stupid-ass things to embarrass the MS legal system go, Jim Kitchens is closer to the bottom than the top, and certainly well below the mid-point. Walt Nixon. Walt Nixon reinstated. QED.
How we managed to stumblefutz ourselves bassackwards from Virgil Griffith, Karl Wiesenburg, et al, to the current situation ought to cause a pause in thought for any thinking Mississippian, and especially attorneys. I regularly refer to the knowledge and more importantly, the insight gained from a long, fortuitous, and treasured multi-generational relationship with Karl. I strongly suggest that every MS lawyer and those seeking to be one do more than a superficial read about both, certainly well beyond simply knowing where a copy of _Chancery Practice_ might be located if absolutely necessary. Again, anecdotal info - do with it what you will.
Kingfish, you're on a roll. And Judge Wingate, how did he suddenly tap into a judicial energy source? He's a bright fellow; it's good to see him in action.
Post a Comment