Curtis Curry v. Lachelle Clemons, In Her Official Capacity as Division Director of The Victim Compensation Division

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Decided: March 25, 2021
• Docket: 2020-CP-00920-SCT
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-CP-00920-SCT

CURTIS CURRY

v.

LACHELLE CLEMONS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIVISION DIRECTOR OF THE VICTIM COMPENSATION DIVISION

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/27/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CHARLES E. WEBSTER TRIAL COURT ATTORNEY: RAINA ANDERSON LEE COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CURTIS CURRY (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BRANDON KYLE MALONE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/25/2021 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ.

RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Curtis Curry appeals an order from the Circuit Court of Coahoma County dismissing

his appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Curry argues that the circuit court erred by

determining it lacked jurisdiction due to his failure to file a cost bond as required by

Mississippi Code Section 99-41-13(a) (Rev. 2020). As “[j]urisdiction is a question of law[,]”

we review jurisdictional challenges de novo. Tyson Breeders, Inc. v. Harrison, 940 So. 2d

230, 232 (Miss. 2006) (quoting Burnette v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 770 So. 2d 948,

950 (Miss. 2000)). In examining the case, we find that the circuit court was correct to hold that it lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On July 19, 2018, Curtis Curry sent an application for compensation to the Victim

Compensation Division of the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. Curry’s claim arose

from an aggravated assault that occurred on December 29, 2016, in Clarksdale, Mississippi.

While Curry was in his home, two individuals entered his home, assaulted him at gunpoint,

and stole $517. Curry was taken to a hospital via ambulance.

¶3. After reviewing his petition, the Victim Compensation Division denied his claim on

the ground that Curry was under the actual or constructive supervision of the Department of

Corrections at the time of the assault, contrary to the requirements for compensation under

Mississippi Code Section 99-41-17(1)(j) (Rev. 2020). Curry requested a contested hearing

to dispute the Victim Compensation Division’s decision. At that hearing, Curry admitted he

was on probation with the Mississippi Department of Corrections as of December 29, 2016,

but assailed the constitutionality of Mississippi Code Section 99-41-17(1)(j) on the grounds

that it was ambiguous and offensive to his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

¶4. On August 22, 2019, the hearing officer of the Victim Compensation Division entered

an order again denying Curry’s application for compensation. On September 16, 2019, Curry

filed an appeal from the hearing officer’s decision in the Circuit Court of Coahoma County.

On July 27, 2020, the circuit court entered an order finding that “Curry failed to file a bond

as required by Miss. Code Ann. §99-41-13(a).” The circuit court held that as a result of

2 Curry’s failure to file a bond, it lacked jurisdiction, so it dismissed Curry’s appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶5. Curry initiated proceedings under the Mississippi Crime Victims’ Compensation Act.

See Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 99-41-1 to -31 (Rev. 2020). The Crime Victim’s Compensation Act

allows victims of crime to file applications for compensation “for economic loss arising from

criminally injurious conduct” to the Victim Compensation Division of the Mississippi

Attorney General’s Office. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-41-7, -11(1) (Rev. 2020). If an applicant

is dissatisfied with the Division’s decision on his claim, he may request a contested hearing.

Miss. Code Ann. § 99-41-11(10) (Rev. 2020).

¶6. Curry requested a hearing after his application was initially rejected, and then, feeling

aggrieved by the renewed rejection following the hearing, Curry chose to appeal. Appeals

in these matters are governed by Mississippi Code Section 99-41-13. Under this section,

applicants may appeal to the circuit court of their resident county or to the Circuit Court of

the First Judicial District of Hinds County. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-41-13(a). Subsection (a)

of Section 99-41-13 further specifies that an appellant must execute and file a “bond payable

to the State of Mississippi” with the circuit clerk and that this bond must be “filed within

thirty (30) days of the receipt of the final decision of the Attorney General.” Miss. Code Ann.

§ 99-41-13(a).

¶7. In Mississippi, “[s]tatutory bond requirements are jurisdictional issues.” Belmont

Holding, LLC v. Davis Monuments, LLC, 253 So. 3d 323, 329 (Miss. 2018) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting T. Jackson Lyons & Assocs., P.A. v. Precious T. Martin,

3 Sr. & Assocs., PLLC, 87 So. 3d 444, 451 (Miss. 2012)). From the earliest days of our

republic, we have recognized that failing to pay a statutory bond deprives the appellate court

of jurisdiction. Hardaway & Boyakin v. Biles, 9 Miss. 657, 658 (1844) (quoting Porter v.

Grisham, 4 Miss. 75, 76 (1838)). This ancient bar falls upon Curry’s cause today. Curry’s

failure to pay the bond as required by statute within the thirty days specified by the statute

deprived the Circuit Court of Coahoma County of jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

¶8. Finding the circuit court’s judgment correct, we affirm.

¶9. AFFIRMED.

KITCHENS AND KING, P.JJ., COLEMAN, MAXWELL, BEAM, CHAMBERLIN, ISHEE AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.