Parks v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–KM–01675–COA.,2014–KM–01675–COA.
• Parties: Cornelius PARKS a/k/a Cornelius A. Parks, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

194 So.3d 179

Cornelius PARKS a/k/a Cornelius A. Parks, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 2014–KM–01675–COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

Dec. 8, 2015.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 2016.

Certiorari Denied June 30, 2016.

David H. Linder, Meridian, attorney for appellant.

Marvin E. Wiggins Jr., attorney for appellee.

Before GRIFFIS, P.J., MAXWELL, JAMES and WILSON, JJ.

WILSON, J., for the Court:

¶ 1. Cornelius Parks was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in the Kemper County Justice Court. He appealed to circuit court, but the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it found that the appeal was not properly perfected. Parks appeals, alleging that the dismissal was error because the circuit court had jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. On August 9, 2011, Parks was found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence in the Kemper County Justice Court. He says, and the State does not dispute, that he was assessed a fine and court costs in the amount of $218.50.¹ On September 6, Parks filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court, along with a “Cost and Appearance Bond” and a check for $449.² The “Cost and Appearance Bond” document read:

... I, Cornelius Parks, am held and firmly bound unto the State of Mississippi in the sum of $449.00, which I am tendering to the Circuit Clerk of Kemper County, Mississippi. I bind myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators. On August 9, 2011, in the Justice Court of Kemper County, Mississippi, I was convicted of domestic violence and sentenced to a fine and assessments of $218.50. Feeling aggrieved by said judgment and conviction, I have taken an appeal to the Circuit Court of Kemper County, Mississippi. I am forthwith depositing with the Circuit Clerk of Kemper County, Mississippi the fine and assessments of $218.50, together with the appeal costs of $230.50, for a total of $449.00.

This condition of this bond is that I will appear before the Circuit Court of Kemper County, Mississippi as required until the appeal is finally determined. If I fail to appear at the time and place set by the said Court, the Court may dismiss the appeal with prejudice and with costs.

The document was notarized and signed by Parks. The circuit clerk also signed the document underneath the following sentence: “I, the undersigned Circuit Court Clerk or Deputy Clerk, do hereby approve the above bond.” Parks's notice of appeal and purported bond were accepted by the clerk and filed on September 6.

¶ 3. The Kemper County prosecutor subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Parks's appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing that the appeal did not comply with Uniform Circuit and County Court Rule 12.02. Parks did not file a written response, but at the a pretrial hearing, he argued through counsel that he had complied with Rule 12.02. Alternatively, he made an oral motion for leave to amend the bond. The circuit judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Parks failed to perfect his appeal because he failed to obtain both of the bonds required by Rule 12.02 —a cost bond and an appearance bond. For the essentially same reason, the court denied Parks's motion for leave to amend, reasoning that the problem was a missing bond, not a bond that needed to be amended. Parks timely appealed to this Court.

ANALYSIS

¶ 4. Whether a court obtained appellate jurisdiction is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Ray v. State, 124 So.3d 80, 81 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (citing Reeves v. City of Crystal Springs, 54 So.3d 322, 324 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2011) ). An order granting a motion to dismiss is also reviewed de novo. Id. (citing Spencer v. State, 880 So.2d 1044, 1045 (¶ 6) (Miss.2004) ).

¶ 5. Rule 12.02 governs appeals from justice or municipal courts and requires the appellant to file simultaneously “a written notice of appeal, and both a cost and an appearance bond (or cash deposit)” within thirty days of the lower court's judgment. URCCC 12.02(A)(1). “This written notice of appeal and posting of the cost bond and appearance bond or cash deposit perfects the appeal. The failure to post any bond or cash deposit required by this rule shall be grounds for the court ... to dismiss the appeal....” Id. The rule requires the filing of both a cost bond and an appearance bond; the difference between the two is significant.

¶ 6. An appearance bond is conditioned upon the appellant's appearance before the court, and if the appellant fails to appear at any time required by the court, the court can dismiss the appeal, and the appearance bond is then forfeited. URCCC 12.02(B)(1). The lower court judge from whom the appeal is taken determines the amount of the appearance bond. Id. A cost bond, on the other hand, must be posted to cover “all estimated court costs, incurred in both the appellate and lower courts (including, but not limited to fees, court costs, and amounts imposed pursuant to statute).” URCCC 12.02(B)(2). The amount of the bond, which can range between $100 and $2,500, is also set by the lower court's judge. Id.

¶ 7. The Kemper County prosecutor argues that Parks failed to perfect his appeal to the circuit court because he failed to file both an appearance bond and a cost bond and instead filed only one bond. It is true that Parks filed only one piece of paper and, judging by the record, wrote only one check to cover the amount of the purported combined bond. For this reason, the circuit judge, relying on this Court's decision in Ray, 124 So.3d 80, granted the prosecutor's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 8. In Ray, Robert Ray was found guilty of a misdemeanor in Lauderdale County Justice Court and was fined and assessed a total of $231.50. Id. at 81 (¶ 2). He filed a notice of appeal with the county court, along with an “appeal bond” of $138.50. Id. The purported appeal bond read,

Ray ... does hereby file with the Court the costs of perfecting his appeal in the amount of one hundred thirty eight dollars ($138.50) which the undersigned is hereby bound.

The condition of the bond is that, if the undersigned ... shall prosecute this appeal and if for any reason the appeal is dismissed, the costs as posted shall be forfeited.

Id. The county court dismissed Ray's appeal for failure to perfect as required by Rule 12.02. Id. at (¶ 3). The circuit court agreed and affirmed the dismissal. Id. This Court also affirmed, finding that Ray's bond for $138.50 was only a cost bond because it could not fulfill the distinct purposes of a cost bond and an appearance bond. Id. at 82 (¶ 7). We noted that Ray's bond, while it may have satisfied the cost bond requirement, did not “secure his appearance through a separate appearance bond.” Id. at 83 (¶ 11) (emphasis omitted). Thus, Ray's appeal was not properly perfected not simply because he “filed one sheet of paper versus two, but because Ray only secured the payment of costs without separately securing his appearance.” Id. at (¶ 12).

¶ 9. There are obvious similarities between Ray and this case, but there are also important differences. Like Ray, Parks filed only “one sheet of paper” rather than two separate documents. However, unlike Ray, Parks's “cost and appearance bond” plausibly purports to serve as both a cost bond and an appearance bond. Unlike Ray's bond, Parks's bond made clear that it was intended to cover both the appeal costs and to secure his appearance before the circuit court. He also noted that the full amount of his...