DOCSLIB.ORG

In the Supreme Court of Florida ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the Supreme Court of Florida ______ __________________________________________________________________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ___________________ Case No. SC06-835 ___________________ ROGER R. MAAS, etc. et al, Appellants/Cross Appellee, v. MARK EVAN OLIVE, Appellee/Cross Appellant. __________________________________________________ On review of Second Judicial Circuit Case 03-CA-000291 __________________________________________________ CROSS-REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT MARK EVAN OLIVE HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Stephen F. Hanlon Steven Brannock Robin L. Rosenberg Leon Fresco 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-3000 Attorneys for Appellee/Cross Appellant __________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................ii ARGUMENT IN REPLY ...................................................................................1 I. OLIVE HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CASE. ....................................1 II. OLIVE'S INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 27.7002 COMPORTS WITH THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE AND THE LEGISLATURE'S ACTUAL INTENT.........................................................3 III. THIS COURT SHOULD EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE POSTCONVICTION COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES................................................................6 A. Like Mississippi and Alaska, Florida is Aptly Positioned to Explicitly Recognize a Constitutional right to Effective Postconviction Counsel in Capital Cases............................................................9 B. Recognizing a Florida Constitutional Right to Postconviction Counsel Need Not Result in An Endless Cycle of Successive Claims as Appellants Allege. ...............................................................................11 C. Olive Properly Relies On ABA Reports and Recommendations; This Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have Repeatedly Endorsed the Findings and Recommendations of the ABA. ..........................................12 CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………………………………15 CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND FONT COMPLIANCE………………….15 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Ackerberg v. Johnson, 892 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir.1989) ..................................................................... 13 Canaan v. McBride, 395 F.3d 376 (7th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) ................................................................................ 7, 8 Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) ....................................................................................9 Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) ................................................................................. 13 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) ....................................................................................7 Hedrick v. True, 443 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 13 Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................... 13 Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) ....................................................................................7 Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989) ................................................................................ 6, 7, 8 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) ................................................................................ 6, 7 Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) ................................................................................. 13 ii SEC v. Tome, 638 F. Supp. 596 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).............................................................. 13 Smith v. Dretke, 422 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Smith v. Mullin, 379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004).................................................................... 13 Summerlin v. Schriro, 427 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 13 Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) .................................................................................. 13 STATE CASES Arbelaez v. Butterworth, 738 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1999)................................................................9, 10, 11 Armstrong v. State, 862 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2005)......................................................................... 13 Clark v. Vandermeer, 740 P.2d 921 (Wyo. 1987) ......................................................................... 13 Commonwealth v. Brown, 872 A.2d 1139 (Pa. 2005) .......................................................................... 13 Fla. Department of Financial Serv. v. Freeman, 921 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2006)...........................................................................5 Franks v. State, 278 Ga. 246, 599 S.E.2d 134 (Ga. 2004)..................................................... 13 Grinols v. State, 74 P.3d 889 (Alaska 2003)..................................................................... 9, 10 Jackson v. State, 732 So. 2d 187 (Miss. 1999) .................................................................. 9, 10 iii Koile v. State, 934 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2006) .........................................................................4 Lambrix v. State, 698 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1997)......................................................................... 12 In re Larry Douglas Lucas, 94 P.3d 477 (Cal. 2004) ............................................................................. 13 Makemson v. Martin County, 491 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1986) .........................................................................5 Olive v. Maas, 811 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2002)............................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Olive v. Maas, 911 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).............................................................2 Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 2004)......................................................................... 13 Rutherford v. State, 940 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 2006) ....................................................................... 13 Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 1992)...........................................................................8 White v. Bd of County Comm'r of Pinellas County, 537 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1989) .........................................................................5 Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2005) .........................................................................6 Zebroski v. State, 822 A.2d 1038 (Del. 2003)......................................................................... 13 iv DOCKETED CASES Barbour v. Haley, No. 06-10920-cc (11th Cir. 2006).................................................................8 Menzies v. Galetka, No. 20040289 (Utah December 15, 2006)................................................... 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Section 27.7002, Fla. Stat.................................................................................1-5 Louis D. Brandeis, The Living Laws, 10 Ill.L.Rev. 461, 740 ............................... 14 House of Representatives Committee on Crime Prevention, Corrections and Safety, Final Analysis of HB 1091 .............................................5 v ARGUMENT IN REPLY Gallagher's argument that Olive has no standing is based on the false premise that Olive seeks to destroy the Registry Program. As shown below, however, Olive challenges only those sections that seek to prevent attorneys from seeking fees in excess of the caps. Gallagher must concede that Olive has standing to seek these rulings under the law of the case. Gallagher's remarkable argument that Section 27.7002 can fairly be read to permit payment above the caps can be reached only by ignoring the language of the statute (which Gallagher's brief proceeds to ignore) and the obvious legislative intent to overrule Olive I. This the Court may not do. Florida should join with Alaska and Mississippi in recognizing a state constitutional right to postconviction capital counsel, thereby vindicating the right of meaningful access to the courts. I. OLIVE HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CASE. Gallagher concedes that Olive has standing to pursue this matter pursuant to the law of the case decided in Olive I. Gallagher Reply at 5; Olive v. Maas, 811 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2002). In fact, as the First District noted on intermediate appeal, Olive has an even stronger basis for standing in this case. Olive has already been appointed by a court to represent a real client in a real case and he is rendering that 1 service pro bono precisely because of the restrictions posed by Section 27.7002. Olive v. Maas, 911 So.2d 837, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Unable to attack Olive's standing on the merits, Gallagher nonetheless asserts that Olive has no standing because his "real aim" is to "obtain the complete invalidation and elimination of the Registry program." Gallagher Reply at 5. This hyperbolic assertion grossly overstates Olive's position. Olive challenges only those portions of the statute that the Legislature enacted after this Court decided Olive I. These subsections improperly penalize attorneys who seek
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Executive Summary 111111.25 '"111.4 II
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. "r,'"_" , -" .~,- ~ 7 '~~ :;-~ ~-.. ,j National Criminal Justice Reference Service i ---------------~~--------------------------------------------~ r , ,i Prepared for the­ ""I I , Mississippi Judicial Council "f nCJrs This microfiche was produced frQm documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, fjl, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on Th~ Mississippi Court Finance Study this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. I , I Executive Summary 111111.25 '"111.4 II MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS-196;>-A Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with i I the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. i Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official I position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. I \----J Date Filmed Ernest H. Short March, 1980 National Institute of ,Justice I &Associates, Inc. United States Department of Justice 2/12/81 I Washington, 'D. C. 20531 I l i iii Ii 7r o PREFACE The Mississippi Courts Finance Study was conducted by Ernest H. Short & Associates, Inc. under contract with the Mississippi JUdicial Council I with support of funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice. The points of view and opinions in the report series are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position THE MISSISSIPPI COURTS FINANCE STUDY or policies of the Mississippi Judicial Councilor the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction to Pronounce Null a Marriage Celebrated in Another State Or Foreign Country 1 T HE Supreme Court of California in Mayer V
    California Law Review Volume XVIII JANUARY, 1930 Number 2 Jurisdiction to Pronounce Null a Marriage Celebrated in Another State or Foreign Country 1 T HE Supreme Court of California in Mayer v. Mayer has given utterance to a dictum that deserves more than passing mention. It is as follows: "Since the validity of marriage is generally deter- mined by the law of the state where the marriage took place, there are cogent reasons why annulment should be sought in the tribunals of that state." It is the latter part of the statement that we believe merits attention. If the learned Justice in the Mayer case means that a court of the state or country where the marriage was celebrated may set it aside, provided both parties are properly before that court, one may not be tempted to quarrel with his statement, but if he means to give support to the opinion that it should have exclusive jurisdiction to annul such marriages irrespective of the residence or domicile of the parties to the suit, he lends some approval to a highly questionable proposition. Unfortunately that proposition has been championed by a few American writers of great learning and ability, and has been ten- tatively adopted by the American Law Institute in its Restatement of Conflict of Laws.2 It is, we believe, a doctrine that, notwithstanding its distinguished defenders, is without substantial support in adjudicated cases; that rests on no solid reason in theory or convenience; and that is calculated, if it should be given credence, to effect much practical injustice.
    [Show full text]
  • State Court Caseload Statistics: Annual Report 1988 Xi FIGURE D: Criminal Case Unit of Count Used by the State Trial Courts
    AJIIL State court T caseload statistics: Annual Report 1988 Wyoming Conference of State Court Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizl :alifornia Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida laho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1 Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevad; ew Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohia C 'ennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota ' tah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ourt Administrators Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Coll elaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois In Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Mint lissouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New orth Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Pui ;land South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Conference of State Court Administratc Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District1 1 NCSC 1 KF i A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators i 180 , .c74 I and the National Center for State Courts : 1988 I c. 2 I bu .CT q IC1 bS glib state court c ,a-- T caseload statistics: Annual Report, 1988 Funding Provided by the STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE Grant Number SJI 88-07X-067 ~pdcJ-3-clO A joint effort of the Conference of State Court Administrators, State Justice Institute, and the National Center for State Courts’ Court Statistics Project February 1990 Library National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Av~. WilIiarnsburg, VA 231 87-8798 Copyright@by The National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-097-X National Center Publication No. R-115 This report was developed under Grant SJI-88-07X-067 from the State Justice Institute.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms Barnewsfall2014.Pdf
    VOL. LXI FALL 2014 NO. 1 Front Row: Mark B. Higdon; Mark A. Bilbrey; John T. Cossar; Rande K. Yeager; J.M. “Mike” Sellari Back Row: J. Walter Michel; James M. Ingram; Robert Lampton; Harry M. Walker; W. Parrish Fortenberry; Ronnie Smith; Chip Triplett; Stewart R. Speed; Larry E. Favreau We may dress casually, but we’re serious about your title business. Title insurance isn’t something you trust to just anybody. That’s why we’ve assembled a team of the most respected business leaders around for our board of directors. eir vision and integrity have helped make Mississippi Valley Title the leading title insurance company in Mississippi. Add to that our sta’s local knowledge and experience and you have a very serious title insurance partner. Call us today. 601.969.0222 | 800.647.2124 | www.mvt.com Expert underwriters to help you navigate complicated transactions Another reason why Stewart is the right underwriter for you. Choose Stewart Title Guaranty Company as your underwriter, and you’ll be able to call upon the unsurpassed experience of our underwriting team. With hundreds of years of cumulative experience, our experts have the in-depth knowledge necessary to guide you through complex issues. Plus, Stewart also provides our issuing agencies with access to Virtual Underwriter ®, our online resource that provides 24/7 access to all the information needed to close a transaction. Contact us today for more information on why Stewart is the right underwriter for you. (601) 977-9776 stewart.com/mississippi Danny L. Crotwell, Esq. Sean M. Culhane, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra-Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court Fall 1997 Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra-Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B. Larry Cata Backer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry C. Backer, Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: Applying Extra- Constitutional Principles to Constitutional Cases in Hendricks and M.L.B., 33 Tulsa L. J. 135 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol33/iss1/10 This Supreme Court Review Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Backer: Fairness As a General Principle of American Constitutional Law: A FAIRNESS AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: APPLYING EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES TO CONSTITUTIONAL CASES IN HENDRICKS AND M.L.B.* Larry Cat Backert We speak the unifying language of fairness in law-making in the late twentieth century. This is the age of due process. The language offairness provides the unifying glue to our law making.1 It is almost a cliche today that, at its limit, all legal categories explode. It is also a commonplace that legal categories tend to be shoved to their limit over the course of time, unless the categories are redefined or destroyed by the weight of their own expansiveness.2 These quasi-biological truisms affect not only statutory and common law legal categories, but increasingly, constitutional categories as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Annual Report
    A MESSAGE FROM CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR. The judiciary has worked extremely hard to secure adequate funding for the judicial branch of govern- ment, while providing an efficient, cost effective system of justice for the people of the state of Mississippi. The entire appropriation allocated this co-equal branch of state government represents less than 1 percent of the state’s general fund. The 2015 Legislature created seven new trial judge positions as part of its required redistricting. Those new judges began serving in January 2016. The Legislature also authorized pay raises of up to $18,000 a year for court reporters, to be awarded according to longevity and implemented over three years. Much of the work of the judicial branch relies on special funds. The judiciary continues to expand be- yond the traditional courtroom and chambers work with special programs tailored to address specific public needs. Drug courts, which reached statewide coverage in early 2013, continue to be the most successful innovation of the state judiciary. These programs save an estimated $46 million annually in incarceration costs, and save mil- lions more in avoided health and social services expenses for people who are working and supporting themselves and their families. However, our drug courts cannot sustain themselves on the special assessments which were put in place during the early years of the drug court movement. Mississippi Electronic Courts continues to expand into more courts. MEC, an electronic filing system which operated in total of 37 trial courts in 25 counties at the end of 2015, receives no state General Fund appropriation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Counsel in Mississippi Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services
    The Right to Counsel in Mississippi Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services MARCH 2018 SIXTH AMENDMENT 6AC CENTER The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Copyright © 2018 by the Sixth Amendment Center. All rights reserved. Publication Number: 2018.001 SIXTH AMENDMENT CENTER P.O. Box 15556 Boston, MA 02215 www.sixthamendment.org PREPARED BY The Sixth Amendment Center (6AC) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization providing technical assistance and evaluation services to policymakers and criminal justice stakeholders. Its services focus on the constitutional requirement to provide effective assistance of counsel to the indigent accused facing a potential loss of liberty in a criminal or delinquency proceeding at all critical stages of a case. For this evaluation, the 6AC worked in partnership with the Defender Initiative of the Seattle University School of Law (SUSL). The Defender Initiative is part of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, whose mission is to advance justice and equality through a unified vision that combines research, advocacy, and education. DISCLAIMER The Mississippi Public Defender Task Force commissioned this report. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funded the work through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Answering Gideon’s Call: National Assistance To Improve the Effectiveness of Right to Counsel Services (DOJ Office of Justice Programs Grant Award #: 2013-MU-BX-k002.) The report solely reflects the opinions of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mississippi Public Defender Task Force or the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Attorney General State of Mississippi 2016 Annual Report
    MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL 2016 Office of the Attorney General State of Mississippi 2016 Annual Report Attorney General Jim Hood 2016 ANNUAL REPORT Page 1 MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL A Message from Attorney General Jim Hood Dear Fellow Mississippians, This past January, I had the great privilege to be sworn in to my fourth term as Attorney General. I am humbled and honored by the confidence that the state’s voters have shown in me. As Mississippi’s chief legal officer, I lead a team of dedicated professionals, all of whom are committed to protecting our great state. As I begin my 14th year in office, I am pleased to present to you the annual report from my office for Fiscal Year 2016. Since I took office, rapid changes to technology have given criminals and con artists new ways to prey upon citizens. However, I am proud that our office has met the challenge of these modern problems. We use sophisticated investigative tools to track down cyber criminals and child predators. We strive to stay a step ahead of those who would attempt to take advantage of Mississippi residents. As we respond to new threats, we continue to investigate and prosecute new cases, assist consumers and crime victims, and train law enforcement officers and prosecutors. The attorneys, investigators, program managers, and support staff who serve you in the Attorney General's Office are among the most accomplished and experienced public servants in the nation. This year, two of them were singled out for national recognition. Paula Broome, Bureau of Victim Assistance, was recognized by the American Bar Association for her service to victims of domestic violence.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Mississippi No. 2015-Ia-00059
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2015-IA-00059-SCT RAM-KABIR OF AMERICA, LLC d/b/a HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS & SUITES v. S.C. ANDERSON GROUP INTERNATIONAL d/b/a ANDERSON GROUP INTERNATIONAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/23/2014 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. EDWIN Y. HANNAN TRIAL COURT ATTORNEY: ADAM REESE deNOBRIGA COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: PAUL MANION ANDERSON SAMUEL STEVEN McHARD ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MATTHEW WILLIAM VANDERLOO CLYDE X. COPELAND, III ADAM REESE deNOBRIGA HIRAM RICHARD DAVIS, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 09/08/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., LAMAR AND KITCHENS, JJ. RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. S.C. Anderson Group International, Inc. (“AGI”) filed two motions–one for leave to amend its complaint and one to transfer to the Circuit Court of Madison County. The County Court of Madison County granted AGI’s motion to transfer based on AGI’s averments and argument that it was seeking more in damages than it originally pleaded, specifically an increase in attorney’s fees. If the amendment were allowed, the ad damnum clause would exceed the $200,000 jurisdictional limit of the county court. Based on the facts and record presented in today’s case, we hold that the jurisdiction of the county court attached at the time the original complaint was filed. We reverse the transfer order. We remand the case to the circuit court with instructions to transfer AGI’s claims against Ram-Kabir of America, LLC, back to the county court.1 STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Copyright © 2018 by the Sixth Amendment Center
    The Right to Counsel in Mississippi Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services MARCH 2018 SIXTH AMENDMENT 6AC CENTER The Right to Counsel in Mississippi: Evaluation of Adult Felony Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Copyright © 2018 by the Sixth Amendment Center. All rights reserved. Publication Number: 2018.001 SIXTH AMENDMENT CENTER P.O. Box 15556 Boston, MA 02215 www.sixthamendment.org PREPARED BY The Sixth Amendment Center (6AC) is a non-partisan, non-profit organization providing technical assistance and evaluation services to policymakers and criminal justice stakeholders. Its services focus on the constitutional requirement to provide effective assistance of counsel to the indigent accused facing a potential loss of liberty in a criminal or delinquency proceeding at all critical stages of a case. For this evaluation, the 6AC worked in partnership with the Defender Initiative of the Seattle University School of Law (SUSL). The Defender Initiative is part of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, whose mission is to advance justice and equality through a unified vision that combines research, advocacy, and education. DISCLAIMER The Mississippi Public Defender Task Force commissioned this report. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) funded the work through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Answering Gideon’s Call: National Assistance To Improve the Effectiveness of Right to Counsel Services (DOJ Office of Justice Programs Grant Award #: 2013-MU-BX-k002.) The report solely reflects the opinions of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Mississippi Public Defender Task Force or the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • 152199 in the SUPREME COURT of MISSISSIPPI No. 89-R-99033
    Serial: 152199 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 89-R-99033-SCT IN RE: UNIFORM RULES OF YOUTH COURT PRACTICE ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Adoption of Youth Court Rules of Practice filed by the Mississippi Task Force for Youth Court Rules. After due consideration, the Court finds that the petition should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Adoption of Youth Court Rules of Practice filed by the Mississippi Task Force for Youth Court Rules is hereby granted and the Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice, as set forth in Exhibit A to this order, are adopted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall spread this Order upon the minutes of this Court and shall forward a certified copy to: West Publishing Company for publication in the Southern Reporter, Second Series, (Mississippi Edition) and the Mississippi Rules of Court. SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of December, 2008. /s/ William L. Waller, Jr. WILLIAM L. WALLER, JR., PRESIDING JUSTICE FOR THE COURT TO GRANT: ALL JUSTICES. Exhibit A UNIFORM RULES OF YOUTH COURT PRACTICE Table of Rules Rule 1 Title Rule 2 Scope of Rules Rule 3 Construction of Rules Rule 4 Definitions Rule 5 Confidentiality of Records and Proceedings Rule 6 Subpoena Duces Tecum Rule 7 Federal Laws and Regulations Rule 8 Intake Rule 9 Court Orders upon Intake Recommendations Rule 10 Valid Court Order Rule 11 Temporary Custody Orders / Custody Orders Rule 12 Taking into Custody Without Custody Order Rule 13 Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem Rule 14 Attorney
    [Show full text]
  • Benchbook for Mississippi County Court Judges
    Benchbook for Mississippi County Court Judges 2021 Copyright by Mississippi Judicial College The University of Mississippi School of Law Blank Page UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI LAW CENTER DEAN Susan Duncan MISSISSIPPI JUDICIAL COLLEGE BOARD OF GOVERNORS Judge Cynthia Lee Brewer, Chancery Court, Chair Bill Benson, Constituent Advisory Committee Representative Judge William A. Boykin, Justice Court Judge Virginia Carlton, Mississippi Court of Appeals Justice Robert P. Chamberlin, Mississippi Supreme Court Judge William J. Halford, Jr., Municipal Court Judge Edwin Hannan, County Court Judge Betty Sanders, Senior Status Judge Michael M. Taylor, Circuit Court DIRECTOR Randy G. Pierce ADDRESS Mississippi Judicial College University of Mississippi P.O. Box 1848 University, Mississippi 38677 TELEPHONE AND FACSIMILE Telephone: (662) 915-5955 Facsimile: (662) 915-7845 Blank Page FOREWORD The Benchbook for Mississippi County Court Judges is drafted in such a way as to easily facilitate the addition of new material, changes in the law, and make corrections as needed. To search for a word, phrase, or particular chapter within the Benchbook document, please press down the “Ctrl/Control” button and then press the “F” button, and a “Find” box will open. Simply type the word, phrase, or particular chapter’s name, such as “burden of proof” or “Chapter 16,” in the blank and press “Enter.” Click “Next” to move through the document. To return to the front of the Benchbook to conduct another search, please press the “Home” button. Any suggestions that you may have to further improve the style, format, presentation, or subject matter of the Benchbook should be addressed to: Mississippi Judicial College c/o Carole E.
    [Show full text]