Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 1754,1754 |
| Citation | 461 So.2d 728 |
| Parties | Sharon WILSON v. STATE of Mississippi. Misc. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Tom P. Calhoun, III, Greenwood, for appellant.
No briefs for appellee.
En Banc.
Sharon Wilson has been convicted in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, First Judicial District, of the crime of embezzlement and has been sentenced to three years in the custody of Mississippi Department of Corrections. On June 26, 1984, she perfected her appeal to this Court. See Rule 48, Miss.Sup.Ct.R.
The matter is here today on Wilson's motion for an enlargement of time within which to review and examine of the court reporter's notes for proposed corrections and suggestions. The motion was denied by the Circuit Judge on grounds that the Circuit Court had lost jurisdiction of the matter. Appellant Wilson applies here for the same relief she had sought and was denied in the court below.
We are of the opinion that the question presented is one within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Court and of the Circuit Court. Thus, the Circuit Court had the authority to entertain Wilson's motion.
By way of analogy, this Court has recognized its authority over trial court reporters respecting matters relating to the preparation and filing of the trial transcript. Brown v. City of Water Valley, 319 So.2d 649, 651 (Miss.1975). We have also recognized the authority of the trial court to grant the court reporter an extension of time to complete the transcript after the appeal has been perfected. Haralson v. State, 308 So.2d 222, 223 (Miss.1975); State v. Autry, 236 Miss. 316, 320, 110 So.2d 377, 378 (1959). Such motions are no doubt heard under the authority of Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 9-13-37 (1972).
The instant motion is made on the authority of Section 9-13-35. That statute provides that upon completion of the transcript the court reporter shall file same with the clerk of the court where the case was tried with each party having a limited opportunity for study of the transcript for the purpose of examination and correction. The statute expressly provides that, if corrections or suggestions as to alterations are made by either party, those shall be presented "to the trial judge". By virtue of this statutory empowering law, the trial judge still has jurisdiction regarding matters touching the preparation of the transcript and the record for appeal.
Notice of appeal has been filed on June 26, 1984, and jurisdiction of this case is now vested in this Court. This Court's jurisdiction is concurrent, however, not exclusive, with respect to subject matter of the instant motion. The Circuit Court has, concurrent with the jurisdiction of this Court, full authority to entertain any and all matters relating to the preparation, correction and perfection of the transcript and record for this appeal, including matters relating to the time within which the various duties must be performed.
In cases such as this where, after an appeal has been perfected, one party or the other seeks an extension of time for the purpose of examination and study of the transcript or record, the motion should in the first instance be filed with the clerk of the court where the trial was had. Such motion is necessarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. The motion should be granted only where reasonable grounds are advanced in support thereof. 1 If the motion should be denied by the trial judge, the moving party may then apply to this Court for relief, for, as indicated above, the jurisdiction with respect to these matters is concurrent.
In the case at bar, the trial judge denied the motion because he was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it. This was error. In order to facilitate the matter and avoid unnecessary expenditures of time and motion, and because reasonable cause has been stated for the granting of the motion, we provide here that the Appellant, Sharon Wilson, shall have through and including December 21, 1984, within which to complete her review and examination of the court reporter's notes.
MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO REVIEW AND EXAMINE COURT REPORTER'S NOTES GRANTED.
PATTERSON, C.J., not participating.
The majority opinion will do no more than add confusion to the law, bring dismay to the lawyers and frustration to the judges.
Therefore, I dissent from the holding of the majority that Mississippi Code Annotated section 9-13-35 (1972) gives the circuit court the authority to grant an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Adoption Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure
...court then grants the Rule 25.2 motion, the appeal may be mooted. See Gardner v. State, 547 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 1989); Wilson v. State, 461 So. 2d 728 (Miss. 1984).Rule 25.3 Denial by Operation of Law.A motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate judgment pending thirty (30) days after entry......
-
Sallie v. State
...R. Civ. P.; Rules 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, Miss. Sup. Ct. Rules; Ward v. Foster , 517 So.2d 513, 516–517 (Miss. 1987) ; Wilson v. State , 461 So.2d 728, 729 (Miss. 1984).See also Creel , 944 So.2d at 893, explaining that trial courts retain jurisdiction under the provisions of Mississippi Code S......
-
Vielee v. State
...(citing Miss.R.Civ.P. 60; Miss.Sup.Ct.R. 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11; Ward v. Foster, 517 So.2d 513, 516-17 (Miss.1987); and Wilson v. State, 461 So.2d 728, 729 (Miss.1984). The Court dismisses the motion as premature and will render judgment on the merits of the appeal because Vielee's former couns......
-
Gardner v. State
...Rule 60, Miss.R.Civ.P.; Rules 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, Miss.Sup.Ct. Rules; Ward v. Foster, 517 So.2d 513, 516-17 (Miss.1987); Wilson v. State, 461 So.2d 728, 729 (Miss.1984). This Court's decision on Gardner's original appeal was rendered September 28, 1988. No petition for rehearing was filed. ......