Cox v. MS Dep't. of Corrections
| Docket Number: | 2006-SA-01611-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-SA-01611-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-27-2007 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employee termination - Due process - Incomplete transcript - M.R.A.P. 10(c) - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J.J., MEYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, J., CHANDLER, J., BARNES, J., ISHEE, J., ROBERTS, J., CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-16-2006 Appealed from: SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: W. Ashley Hines Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED TERMINATION OF COX’S EMPLOYMENT WITH MDOC Case Number: 2005-0767-CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | EMMA COX |
W. ELLIS PITTMAN,
JWON TERRELL NATHANIEL |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JANE L. MAPP |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Employee termination - Due process - Incomplete transcript - M.R.A.P. 10(c) - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Emma Cox was terminated from her position as correctional officer with the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The hearing officer recommended that Cox be terminated for appearing to be asleep while on duty. Cox appealed to the Employee Appeals Board which upheld the termination. Cox appealed to the full board of the EAB, where the termination was also upheld. Cox appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Cox appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process Cox argues that it was a violation of her due process rights for the full board of the EAB to affirm the hearing officer’s decision to terminate her because the board did not have the full transcript of the original hearing. The circuit court held that, pursuant to M.R.A.P. 10(c), Cox could have supplemented the record with her own recollection of the missing parts of the hearing. When an appellant is represented by the same counsel at trial and on appeal, the appellant is required to show specific prejudice by the missing portions of the record in order to mandate reversal and remand for a new trial. While Cox does claim that she was harmed by the missing portions of the record, she has not shown the specific prejudice necessary to warrant reversal on this issue. She was represented by her present counsel at both the hearing before the EAB hearing officer and at the appeal to the circuit court. No attempt was ever made to supplement the incomplete transcript. Cox has not shown that the missing testimony would be anything more than a repetition of the testimony that is included in the transcript. Issue 2: Substantial evidence Cox argues that the EAB’s decision to terminate her employment was not supported by substantial evidence. Despite the conflicting testimony presented by Cox, there was substantial evidence to support the EAB’s decision to terminate her. The deputy warden testified that Cox was sitting down and that her eyes appeared to be closed while she was supposed to be observing the prisoners in the yard. There was evidence that the prisoners were aware that Cox was not paying attention and that such a situation presented a danger to herself and to the prisoners. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
