Jones v. City of Ridgeland, 48 So. 3d 530

Jones pleaded nolo contendere in Ridgeland Municipal Court to DUI, open container, and careless driving; convictions entered after de novo county-court trial; circuit court affirmed; Jones sought Supreme Court review via writ of certiorari; three-court rule (Section 11-51-81) challenged on constitutional grounds.
Officers stopped Jones after disturbance in Buffalo Wild Wings parking lot; Jones was observed driving erratically, not wearing a seat belt, and alcohol detected; stop occurred on a public road after leaving private property open to the public.
Jones argued lack of probable cause to stop; county court denied motion to dismiss; Jones convicted of DUI and careless driving; appeal dismissed under the three-court rule before reaching merits.
Court of Appeals had dismissed under the three-court rule; Supreme Court granted certiorari to address constitutionality of the rule; majority held the rule unconstitutional, severed the offending portion, and remanded for merits review.
Court clarified it would address only the three-court rule and preserved the rest of Section 11-51-81 as severable.
Judge Randolph, joined by Lamar, concurred in part and in result, arguing the rule is constitutional and should be adopted by the Court

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the three-court rule unconstitutional?	Jones asserts separation of powers; rule usurps judicial rule-making power.	Ridgeland argues rule is legislative, within state power to define appeals.	Three-court rule unconstitutional as to rule-making power (separation of powers).
Does the three-court rule infringe the Equal Protection Clause?	Unequal access to Supreme Court based on county type.	Rule applies equally to all within affected counties; no invidious discrimination.	No equal protection violation; rule applies uniformly to affected counties.
May the Court sever the unconstitutional portion from the remainder of Section 11-51-81?	Severability should be recognized; rule invalid only to extent unconstitutional.	Remnant statute remains effective; severability should be upheld.	Yes; statute is severable and remainder remains in effect.
Did law enforcement have probable cause to stop Jones?	Stop lacked probable cause.	Totality of circumstances showed probable cause to stop for DUI-related behavior.	Police had probable cause to stop based on observed behavior and evidence; stop valid.
Is the three-court rule a proper exercise of legislative authority over appellate jurisdiction?	Rule improperly constrains this Court's jurisdiction.	Legislature may define appellate rights and jurisdiction.	Law is an acceptable legislative directive defining appellate rights and jurisdiction.

Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975) (inherent rule-making power to promulgate procedural rules)
S. Pac. Lumber Co. v. Reynolds, 206 So.2d 334 (Miss. 1968) (constitutional power to promulgate procedural rules; separation of powers)
Worley v. Pappas, 135 So.2d 348 (Miss. 1931) (equal protection considerations historically addressed; rule-making context)
Gill v. Miss. Dep’t of Wildlife Conservation, 574 So.2d 586 (Miss. 1990) (right to appeal is statutory)
Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1879) (state may regulate jurisdiction of courts and finality; equal-protection considerations)