229 So. 3d 178
Miss. Ct. App.2017Background
- Ralph A. Smith Jr. was involuntarily committed to the Mississippi State Hospital at Whitfield after a chancery-court commitment following a finding of incompetence to stand trial.
- Smith’s counsel sought outpatient treatment under Miss. Code Ann. § 41-21-74; Whitfield is physically located in Rankin County but the hospital is the State facility at Whitfield.
- Hinds County Chancery Court (First Judicial District) conducted a § 41-21-81/83 20-day hearing and ordered continued inpatient treatment; that order was not appealed.
- Counsel then filed a petition for outpatient treatment in Rankin County; the State moved to dismiss, arguing jurisdiction lies in Hinds County when the patient is confined at Whitfield per § 41-21-83.
- Rankin County granted the motion and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Smith appealed. While the appeal was pending, Smith obtained outpatient release from Hinds County.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which chancery court has jurisdiction over an outpatient-treatment petition under § 41-21-74 when the patient is confined at Whitfield? | Jurisdiction lies in the chancery court of the county where the public facility is located (Rankin) or the committing court (Leflore); Rankin therefore had jurisdiction. | § 41-21-83 requires hearings under § 41-21-74 to be held in the chancery court of the county where the facility is located, but expressly assigns jurisdiction to the First Judicial District of Hinds County when the patient is confined at Whitfield; thus Hinds has jurisdiction. | The court affirmed dismissal: § 41-21-83’s specific provision for Whitfield controls, so Hinds County chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction when the patient was confined at Whitfield. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strong v. Bostick, 420 So. 2d 1356 (Miss. 1982) (mootness doctrine and exception for issues capable of repetition yet evading review)
- In re Bauman, 878 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (civil-commitment appeal fits the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975) (federal precedent recognizing the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception)
- Buckel v. Chaney, 47 So. 3d 148 (Miss. 2010) (apply plain-meaning rule for unambiguous statutes)
- Tallahatchie Gen. Hosp. v. Howe, 154 So. 3d 29 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review for motions to dismiss)
- Legislative of State v. Shipman, 170 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2015) (jurisdiction and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Tunica Cty. v. Hampton County Nat'l Sur., 27 So. 3d 1128 (Miss. 2009) (read statutes on same subject together to effectuate legislative intent)
- Russell v. State, 94 So. 2d 916 (Miss. 1957) (court’s role is to determine what a statute provides, not what it should provide)