Lafayette County Bd. of Supervisors v. Third Circuit Drug Court, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01745-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 11-29-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2012 Opinion Author: Kitchens, J. Holding: Dismissed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Administration of drug court funds - Moot issue - Public interest exception Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler, Pierce and King, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-21-2010 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: Ordered the Board of Supervisors to fund certain expenditures for the drug court. Case Number: L10-371-MISC |
|
| Note: | Motion to Dismiss Appeal is dismissed as moot. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Lafayette County Board of Supervisors |
DAVID D. O’DONNELL |
|
|
| Appellee: | Third Circuit Drug Court, Andrew K. Howorth and State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: ELIZABETH RUBY CARR MALISSA WINFIELD | ||
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: | Administration of drug court funds - Moot issue - Public interest exception |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Third Circuit Court District is comprised of Benton, Marshall, Tippah, Union, Calhoun, Chickasaw, and Lafayette Counties, and Honorable Andrew K. Howorth, that district’s senior circuit judge, serves as the Third Circuit’s drug court judge. On December 3, 2007, the Lafayette County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to “provide the initial, up-front financial support for the [Third Circuit] Drug Court.” Thereafter, according to the parties, the county made all payments on behalf of the drug court and was reimbursed by the Administrative Office of Courts on a monthly basis. The county also “assumed the management of the Drug Court’s financial accounts.” In August 2009, a dispute arose between the Lafayette County Board of Supervisors and the drug court over whether the drug court should pay rent for the use of space in the county courthouse. The Board says that it requested rental payments after AOC office staff informed the Board that other Mississippi drug courts pay for use of county facilities. While this dispute was pending, the drug court attempted to hire a part-time law enforcement officer, Pete Samples. On February 12, 2010, the Board informed the drug court that it would not fund the position until the question of rent was resolved. In response, Judge Howorth sent a letter to the Board’s attorney expressing his intent to request additional funding from the AOC for rental payments. The letter also stated that he would “be entering a sua sponte administrative order to clarify the relationship between the drug court and Lafayette County.” Shortly after receiving Judge Howorth’s letter, the Board voted to discontinue administration of the drug court funds. The Board’s attorney then contacted the AOC regarding the procedure for ceasing its involvement with the drug court. After learning of the county’s decision from the AOC, the drug court entered a fourteen-page order. The Board filed a motion for rehearing or clarification, recognizing that, while the county initially had agreed to serve as the “lead county,” nothing in the Drug Court Act or the AOC rules required the county to continue as such. The drug court then entered a “final order” which contained some rather stern language directed at the Board. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In the drug court’s brief, the attorney general informed the Court that “[r]ecently, Union County replaced Lafayette County as the ‘lead county’ for the Drug Court.” Both parties recognized that the issue is now moot. However, the parties asked that the Supreme Court exercise its discretion to review the matter. Generally, the Court will not adjudicate moot questions. A “public interest” exception allows the Court to review moot issues when the question concerns a matter of such nature that it would be distinctly detrimental to the public interest that there should be a failure by the dismissal to declare and enforce a rule for future conduct. In this case, all issues raised on appeal are moot, and the public interest exception does not apply. There is no present harm readily apparent (or even alleged) to either the drug court or to Lafayette County or to the public. Moreover, it is not clear from the record that either party ever suffered any demonstrable harm. Any harm actually suffered by the County would be limited to the cost of “managing” the drug court’s finances; but the Board does not allege that the county suffered any financial loss as a result of those activities. The State Drug Court Advisory Committee is better suited to handle any concerns arising from the drug court’s order. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
