author: CARLSON, Justice, for the Court.

text:
    Sam Ivan MARTIN v. STATE of Mississippi.
    No. 2002-KA-00400-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    April 22, 2004.

      Ross Parker Simons, attorney for appellant.
    Office of the Attorney General by Deirdre McCrory, attorney for appellee.
   CARLSON, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. Sam Ivan Martin was convicted in the Circuit Court of Jackson County of the murder of his wife, Crystal, and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Aggrieved by the judgment rendered against him, Martin appeals to this Court contending that the circuit court erred in (1) finding him competent to stand trial, (2) denying his motion to suppress two inculpatory statements he made to law enforcement, and (3) sentencing him under a statute which unconstitutionally delays his potential earned time release based upon his age. Finding no merit to Martin’s contentions, we affirm his conviction and sentence.

FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT

¶ 2. On August 8, 1998, Deputy Sheriff Robert Zwick of the Jackson County Sheriffs Department responded to a 911 call at the residence of Sam Ivan Martin and Crystal Martin. While at the residence, Deputy Zwick discovered that Crystal was not at home and there appeared to be signs of a disturbance. Deputy Sheriff Mike Sears discovered casings from a 12-gauge shotgun. Fearing foul play, Detective Sergeant James O’Bryant of the Jackson County Sheriffs Department (Criminal Investigation Division) arranged for Martin to come in for questioning on August 9, 1998. After being interrogated by Investigator O’Bryant, Martin confessed that he had shot Crystal after she had attempted to shoot herself. Martin then buried Crystal’s body in the septic tank behind the couple’s home. Crystal’s body was removed from the septic tank, and it was determined that she had suffered from two shotgun blasts, one to her face and one to her chest. Martin was arrested on August 9,1998.

¶ 3. Martin was indicted, tried, found guilty of murder and sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The trial court denied Martin’s motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a JNOV.

DISCUSSION

I. Competency Hearing

¶ 4. On July 31, 2001, a hearing was conducted to determine whether Martin was competent to stand trial. Dr. J. Donald Matherne, a board-certified clinical psychologist, testified for the defense. Dr. Matherne was substituted for Dr. L. Mul-ry Tetlow, a licensed psychologist, in June 2001 to serve as the court-appointed expert for Martin. Dr. Matherne interviewed Martin on July 14, 2001, spending approximately three hours with Martin. Over the next week, he reviewed approximately 255 pages of background information. After reviewing this information, Dr. Matherne was made aware of the fact that he had had prior contact with Martin when Martin was under the custody of the Department of Human Services due to parental neglect in approximately 1986. At the time Dr. Matherne had suggested Martin remain in the residential placement of Mill Creek. DHS concurred with his findings, and Martin remained there for several months. On July 26, 2001, Dr. Matherne dictated his report which was immediately hand-delivered to the Jackson County Public Defender’s Office. Upon receiving Dr. Matherne’s report, the Public Defender’s Office immediately provided a copy to the District Attorney’s Office.

¶ 5. Dr. Matherne testified that during his evaluation he performed intellectual, educational and personality testing. Dr. Matherne stated that he also performed competency testing and evaluated Martin’s capabilities in dealing with his Miranda warnings. Dr. Matherne noted that, in addition to his evaluation, Martin was also evaluated in 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1990 and 1992. Dr. Matherne incorporated these six prior intellectual evaluations into his own report. Using (1) Martin’s prior special education records from school; (2) prior psychometric testing; (3) the evaluations from Mill Creek; (4) the disability evaluation by the Social Security Administration in 1992; (5) his own evaluations; and (6) an instrument called the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication, developed by the National Institute of Mental Health to determine competency specifically related to the ability of the defendant to proceed with adjudication, Dr. Matherne determined that Martin was “incompetent to fully understand the proceedings necessary for his defense.” Dr. Matherne further determined that due to his lack of understanding of the court process, Martin would have “difficulty working together in a meaningful manner in his representation in the court process.”

¶ 6. Dr. Matherne determined that Martin was . “significantly compromised, primarily because of his intellectual incompetency and not because of any mental incompetency.” Dr. Matherne’s testified that during his intellectual testing of Martin, he discovered that Martin’s reading and writing skills were on a first grade level and his ability to comprehend math problems was on a third grade level.

¶ 7. Dr. Matherne also testified that he utilized a test developed by Dr. Thomas Grisso to assess Martin’s understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Dr. Matherne determined that Martin showed “evidence of a degree of impairment in his ability to understand his rights during interrogation, particularly concerning his right to remain silent.” Therefore, Dr. Matherne concluded that Martin’s “ability to understand Miranda was significantly compromised, and [ ] his ability to understand the proceedings was compromised, primarily because of his intellectual deficiencies.”

¶ 8. According to Dr. Matherne, he did not talk to any of Martin’s family members before or after his evaluation. The history he relied on was provided in the 255 pages of background information submitted by schools, psychologists and the Social Security Administration which spanned the last twenty years. The latest history of Martin included in the background information utilized by Dr. Matherne was a record from William Bridges, M.D., a psychiatrist, dated April 29, 1998. That record stated that Martin was “mildly mentally retarded and unable to read or write.” The records indicated that Martin finished school at East Central High School in Hurley where he was in special education classes. Dr. Bridges also acknowledged that Martin had been attending Singing River Services twice a week.

¶ 9. Dr. Matherne chose not to interview any of Martin’s family members, and he stated that he based the competency examination on Martin as he saw him on July 14, 2001. Also, Dr. Matherne testified that he did not rely solely on the information from twenty years ago inasmuch as competency is a present factor to determine. He stated that his findings were only validated by the supplemented background information; therefore, there was no need to interview family members, police, co-workers or neighbors. He also did not listen to the audio tape of the statement made to the police by Martin. Dr. Matherne was informed by Martin’s counsel, Brenda Cook, that she was having difficulties communicating with Martin. Although Dr. Math-erne met Katy Jones, Martin’s fiancee and the mother of his child, Dr. Matherne did not question her as to the history of their relationship.

¶ 10. When asked if Martin was able to communicate the general facts surrounding the crime such as date, time, victim and place, Dr. Matherne responded that Martin was able to do so. However, Dr. Matherne stated that when asked hypothetical questions concerning legal situations, Martin was unable to understand the role of the defendant in relation to his counsel. Dr. Matherne also stated that Martin knew the difference between the truth and a lie.

¶ 11. Martin’s employer, William Toulme, testified that he employed Martin at Toulme Tire, Inc. approximately a year before the hearing. Toulme stated that Martin’s duties consisted of sweeping, cleaning, and sometimes changing tires. Although he stated Martin never caused any problems, Toulme testified that Martin had a difficult time following directions and his communication skills were extremely poor.

¶ 12. The State’s expert psychiatrist, Dr. James Rusch, testified that on the morning of the hearing he was given a packet of materials by the State for review. He was also given a synopsis of the police report and had been allowed to listen to the previous testimony of Dr. Math-erne and the other defense witnesses. From the reports and testimony, Dr. Rusch testified that he did not agree with Dr. Matherne’s opinion that Martin was not competent to stand trial. Dr. Rusch did agree that Martin suffered from mild or moderate mental retardation. However, Dr. Rusch testified that it was his opinion that Martin had both the capacity to communicate his needs and communicate with his counsel. He agreed that Martin may have trouble understanding the proceedings, but he did not see this as an absolute limitation. Dr. Rusch opined that once the proceedings were explained in simple concepts, Martin would be reasonably able to assist his counsel and the trial could proceed. Dr. Rusch was not able to determine if Martin understood his current legal situation because he did not individually interview Martin. Also the questions and answers regarding this subject matter were not covered in the material he was given to review; therefore, he was not able to form an opinion within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

¶ 13. On cross-examination, Dr. Rusch admitted that he could not state with reasonable medical certainty that Martin was not competent to stand trial because he had not individually interviewed Martin. However, he did testify that given the same information used by Dr. Matherne, he would not have reached the same conclusion reached by Dr. Matherne that Martin was not competent to stand trial.

¶ 14. At the end of Dr. Rusch’s testimony, the State requested that Martin be immediately examined by Dr. Rusch. Finding that sufficient evidence had not been presented to the court so that the court could affirmatively state that Martin was competent to stand trial, the court granted the State’s request. Immediately following the competency hearing, Dr. Rusch examined Martin for approximately twenty minutes. Following the interview, Dr. Rusch was reexamined by the State. Dr. Rusch stated that he had sufficient time to conduct the interview and that Martin was very cooperative during the interview. Dr. Rusch stated that it was his opinion that Martin was able to stand trial and that he “has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him.”

¶ 15. On cross-examination, Dr. Rusch agreed that the answers Martin gave to the thirteen question McGarry test were childlike responses. Dr. Rusch also agreed that Martin had difficulty understanding areas of complex abstraction which are commonly found in a case such as his. However, Dr. Rusch further stated it would be the duty of the attorney to deal with the complex roles and further explain all potential options to their clients.

¶ 16. Although he noted that there was conflicting testimony, the trial court, basing its finding upon the questions that were asked by Dr. Rusch and the responses which were given by Martin, determined that Martin was competent to stand trial and was capable of assisting his attorneys.

¶ 17. This Court has held that the test for competency to stand trial mandates that a defendant is one:

(1) who is able to perceive and understand the nature of the proceedings; (2) who is able to rationally communicate with his attorney about the case; (3) who is able to recall relevant facts; (4) who is able to testify in his own defense if appropriate; and (5) whose ability to satisfy the foregoing criteria is commensurate with the severity of the case.

Howard v. State, 701 So.2d 274, 280 (Miss. 1997) (citations omitted). The standard for competence to stand trial is whether the defendant has “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and “has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). The procedures which govern a competency determination were set forth in Emanuel v. State, 412 So.2d 1187, 1188-89 (Miss.1982). See also Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice 9.06. In Emanuel, this Court held:

When the trial court has made a finding that the evidence does not show a probability that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, we will not overturn that finding unless we can say, from the evidence, that the finding was manifestly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The evidence must show more than a possibility that defendant is incompetent to stand trial-the evidence must go further until it appears to the trial court that there is a probability that defendant is incapable of making a rational defense. In this initial inquiry, the trial judge must weigh the evidence and be the trier of the facts.

Emanuel, 412 So.2d at 1189.

¶ 18. We find no evidence in the record to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion or that the determination of competency was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. See Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 489-90 (Miss.2001); Dunn v. State, 693 So.2d 1333, 1341 (Miss.1997). The conflict in the evidence presented is properly resolved by the trier of fact. See Snow, 800 So.2d at 490; Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 663 (Miss.1997). Therefore, this issue is without merit.

II. Suppression Hearing

¶ 19. On July 31, 2001, following the morning competency hearing, the circuit court held a hearing on the defense’s motion to suppress the statements made by Martin to the Jackson County Sheriffs Department. On at least two separate occasions, Martin made statements to the Sheriffs Department. However, Martin argued that he never knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently waived his rights to an attorney. Martin also argued that the statements were elicited by undue coercion.

¶ 20. The State first called Robert Zwick, a patrol deputy with the Jackson County Sheriffs Department. Deputy Zwick testified that he was dispatched to the Martin residence on Little Bluff Road on August 8, 1998. When he first arrived at the scene, no one was at the residence. Martin arrived as Deputy Zwick was walking back to his car. Zwick testified that Martin seemed surprised when he was informed that Crystal was not at home. Martin and Zwick then entered the residence to determine if Crystal was in fact at home. Zwick testified at that point Martin was not a suspect for any crime. Although they did not find Crystal in the trailer, Deputy Zwick did discover that the couch had been moved. Zwick testified that he was familiar with the Martins’ home because he had been previously called out to their residence. Zwick testified that when Martin moved the couch back to its normal position, Martin found blood. Zwick also determined that another spot, which he first thought to be a ketchup stain, was also blood. After discovering blood at the Martins’ residence, Zwick then called his supervisor, Captain Bud Polifrone.

¶ 21. Zwick testified that while he and Martin were at the trailer, Martin told him that he and Crystal were inside eating with their four children when they heard a “bang” at the back door. Crystal went to the back door with a shotgun and informed Martin that it was his father, Chester. She also told Martin to “get the kids safe.” At that time, Crystal had charges against Chester for simple assault and stalking. Zwick testified that Martin told him he then loaded all of the children inside their vehicle and left the trailer. Martin told Zwick that this was the last time he saw Crystal. Zwick testified that this was the only conversation he had with Martin. Zwick also stated that nothing was done in his presence to induce Martin to give this version of his story.

¶ 22. The State next called James Robert O’Bryant, formerly a detective sergeant with the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Jackson County Sheriffs Department. At the time of the hearing, O’Bryant was employed by Ingalls Shipbuilding. O’Bryant testified that he was called to the Martins’ residence on August 8, 1998. O’Bryant stated that he did have an opportunity to speak with Martin once he got to the scene. Martin informed O’Bryant that Crystal was gone; however, Martin did not elaborate except to say that he and Crystal were having problems and were separated at the time. O’Bryant made arrangements for Martin to come to the CID office the next day. At this point in the investigation, O’Bryant testified that Martin was now a suspect in Crystal’s disappearance. Before questioning Martin, O’Bryant stated that he read Martin his Miranda rights using the Department’s standard form. After being read his Miranda rights, Martin signed the form. O’Bryant stated that Martin appeared to understand the form and he agreed to talk to O’Bryant. O’Bryant testified that no one threatened or coerced Martin in his presence. O’Bryant stated that he made an audio tape of the interview. After this initial interview, O’Bryant stated that he left the room to attend to Department business. Martin was left in the interview room alone with Captain Ca-rew. When O’Bryant returned to the room and after Captain Carew had left the room, Martin made another statement which was not recorded. O’Bryant testified that Martin broke down and told him that “the shotgun went off, hit her in the side of the head and her eyeball was hanging out and he didn’t want her to suffer, and so, he shot her in the chest.” O’Bryant testified that Martin stated he then placed Crystal’s body in the septic tank outside the trailer. O’Bryant testified that he did not coerce Martin to make this statement. This conversation which occurred approximately fifteen minutes after the taped conversation was the last conversation O’Bryant had with Martin.

¶ 23. On cross-examination, O’Bryant stated that Martin was read his rights at approximately 3:00 p.m. on August 9, 1998. However, the statement given by Martin was not recorded until 5:12 p.m. and lasted approximately five minutes. O’Bryant testified that several officers talked with Martin on the afternoon of August 9. O’Bryant also testified that Martin had indicated to him that he had been beaten while he was alone in the interrogation room with Captain Carew. However, O’Bryant testified that he did not condone offensive procedures, and if those types of procedures had occurred in his presence, he would have cleared the interrogation room and privately conducted the interview. O’Bryant stated that after he had conducted the initial taped interview, he was instructed by Captain Carew to leave the interview room. When he reentered the interview room, Martin was very upset. Martin then told O’Bryant that Captain Carew hit him. O’Bryant testified that based on Martin’s emotional state, he believed Martin was telling the truth about the beating.

¶ 24. The State then withdrew the introduction of the third statement made by Martin after the incident occurred between Martin and Captain Carew. The State proposed to introduce the first statement made to Officer Zwick and the recorded statement made to O’Bryant. Martin moved to exclude all evidence that would be “fruits of the poisonous tree” because the third statement led the Sheriffs Department to the body. The trial court denied the motion because in the recorded statement, Martin made reference to taking the body and burying it in a shallow grave.

¶ 25. Continuing with testimony at the suppression hearing, the defense called Dr. Matherne to testify as to the specific testing performed in order to determine if Martin was competent to waive a Miranda warning. Dr. Matherne performed three tests, the Weschler Adult Intelligence Test-Ill (WAIS-III), the Wide Range Adaptive TesNIII (WRAT-III) and a test developed by Dr. Thomas Grisso referred to as the “Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights.” Based on the results gleaned from these tests, Dr. Matherne determined that there were several words contained in the waiver of rights form that Martin did not understand. Although he did understand many of the other words, Dr. Matherne testified that Martin became confused during the questioning of his rights due to his limited intellect. Dr. Matherne further testified that in his professional opinion, Martin was “significantly compromised in his ability to adequately waive his Miranda rights.” Dr. Matherne determined that Martin’s IQ was 60; therefore, Martin would be extremely easy to confuse and would be highly susceptible to outside influence.

¶ 26. On cross-examination, Dr. Math-erne explained that while Martin might understand all the words found in the sentences which make up the waiver form, when the words are actually put into sentence form, it requires a higher level of intellectual functioning to comprehend the meaning of the sentence.

¶ 27. After hearing testimony, the trial court determined that Martin’s first two statements made to Zwick and O’Bryant were freely, voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly made. Therefore, the motion to suppress those two statements was denied. The trial court held that the statement made after the recorded statement would be excluded based upon violence exhibited toward the defendant.

¶ 28. The trial commenced on July 31, 2001 and before the jury was empaneled, Martin moved to preclude the State from offering any testimony regarding the body or the body being found in the septic tank because of the statements suppressed by trial court. Martin argued that the statement which was suppressed due to coercion informed the Sheriffs Department that the body could be found in the septic tank. After that statement was given, the body was discovered in the septic tank. The statement which was not suppressed only stated that the body had been buried in a shallow grave. The septic tank was not mentioned. The State argued that the trial court had previously ruled on this motion. However, the State further argued that although Martin had not mentioned a septic tank in the first statement, he did state that he had buried her in a shallow grave. The shallow grave turned out to be the septic tank which could not be accessed without digging. The trial court denied the motion because it found septic tank and shallow grave to be synonymous. The trial court stated that the information provided by Martin in the statement which was not suppressed would have allowed the Sheriffs Department to discover the body.

¶ 29. “For a confession to be admissible, it must have been given voluntarily and not given as a result of promises, threats or inducements.” Richardson v. State, 722 So.2d 481, 487 (Miss.1998) (citing Morgan v. State, 681 So.2d 82, 86 (Miss.1996); Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 837-38 (Miss.1994); Layne v. State, 542 So.2d 237, 240 (Miss.1989)). In determining whether a statement is voluntary, the trial judge must first determine whether the accused, prior to the confession, understood the content and substance of the Miranda warning and the nature of the charges of which he was accused. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 755 (Miss.1984). Although this Court has repeatedly recognized that “an accused’s intelligence level and mental abilities are an important factor to be considered in determining whether a confession has voluntarily been given,” there are no per se rules against admitting the confession of a mentally challenged person. Id. at 756.

[T]he mental abilities of an accused are a factor — but only one factor' — -to be considered. When all of the facts and circumstances of the particular confession and the interrogation leading up to it are considered — including the accused’s abilities — the trial judge must find as a fact whether the confession was intelligently and voluntarily made. That fact finding will not be disturbed here unless we find it clearly erroneous.

Id.

A confession will not ordinarily be excluded merely because the person making the confession is mentally weak. Until it is shown that a weak-minded person has been overreached to the end that he has divulged that which he would not have divulged had he not been overreached, his voluntary confession is admissible.

Williamson v. State, 330 So.2d 272, 276 (Miss.1976).

¶ 30. “This Court will reverse a trial court’s finding that a confession is admissible only when an incorrect legal standard was applied, manifest error was committed, or the decision is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235, 1243 (Miss.1994) (citing Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 665 (Miss.1991)). Therefore, after a thorough review of the record, we decline to hold that the trial court’s finding regarding Martin’s ability to voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his rights and make two separate statements was clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. We further find that the trial court was correct in denying Martin’s motion to preclude all mention of Crystal’s body by applying the rationale that the Sheriffs Department would have discovered the body from the information given to them by Martin in his second statement which was admitted into evidence. We, therefore, find this issue is without merit.

III. Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139(l)(a)

¶ 31. After being convicted of murder pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19(l)(a) (Rev.2000), Martin was sentenced to serve a term of life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Martin argues that the statute which governs when a party can be conditionally released from a life sentence, Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139 (Rev.2000), violates his due process rights and equal protection rights because the statute makes an age-based distinction which lengthens a criminal sentence due to the age of an inmate. Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139 (Rev.2000) states in pertinent part:

(1) An inmate shall not be eligible for the earned time allowance if:
(a) The inmate was sentenced to life imprisonment; but an inmate, except an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment for capital murder, who has reached the age of sixty-five (65) or older and who has served at least fifteen (15) years may petition the sentencing court for conditional release ....

¶ 32. Martin raised this issue before the trial court in his Motion for a New Trial, or, in the Alternative, a JNOV. Martin argued that the statutory scheme under which he was sentenced, Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139, was unconstitutional. Martin argued that since he was 27 years old at the time the crime was committed, he would be required to serve at least 35 years before becoming eligible to petition the trial court for conditional release; whereas, someone who was sentenced at the age of 50 would only have to serve 15 years before being given the opportunity to petition for conditional release. The trial court denied Martin’s motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, a JNOV.

¶ 33. The State argues that Martin is serving a life sentence following a conviction of murder; therefore, Martin is not incarcerated by virtue of Miss.Code Ann. § 47-5-139. The State contends that this issue is not currently ripe for review on direct appeal of Martin’s conviction and sentence. The State suggests the proper place for application of this statute would be Martin’s petition for post-conviction relief. We agree. Additionally, the cases cited by Martin are inapplicable to the issue before us today. Section 47-5-139 is not violative of Martin’s due process and equal protection rights by specifying criteria to consider in determining which inmates may or may not be considered for earned time allowance. See Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1217-18 (5th Cir.1984); Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 806 (Miss. 2001); Harden v. State, 547 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Miss.1989). This issue is thus without merit.

CONCLUSION

¶ 34. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sam Ivan Martin was competent to stand trial nor in finding Martin voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his rights prior to making two separate statements which were admissible into evidence. Additionally, Martin’s sentence is not unconstitutional, either in its imposition or its effect under our sentencing and parole statutes. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County.

¶ 35. CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., EASLEY, GRAVES AND DICKINSON, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

      . Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 states in pertinent part:
      (1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:
      (a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being....


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: EASLEY, Justice, for the Court. COBB, Presiding Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    Haley BARBOUR and Mississippi Department of Corrections by and on behalf of the State of Mississippi v. DELTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY and Jim Hood, Attorney General, State of Mississippi.

    No. 2002-CA-01510-SCT.
    Supreme Court of Mississippi.
    April 22, 2004.
    John L. Maxey, II, Christina Carroll, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
    Harold Edward Pizzetta, III, attorney for appellees.

      . In January 2004, during the pendency of this appeal, Haley Barbour succeeded Ronnie Musgrove as Governor of Mississippi, while Jim Hood succeeded Mike Moore as Attorney General of Mississippi. By operation of M.R.A.P. 43(c), Governor Barbour and Attorney General Hood were automatically substituted as parties in their official capacities in the place of their predecessors in office.

   EASLEY, Justice, for the Court.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

¶ 1. This case involves the interpretation of whether then-Governor Ronnie Mus-grove’s veto of a portion of Senate Bill No. 3163 (SB 3163) from the 2002 legislative session, 2002 Miss. Laws ch. 135, amounted to a veto of an appropriation or merely a condition of an appropriation. This Court finds that the partial veto was part of a condition and therefore, according to the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and almost 100 years of case law interpreting our State’s Constitution, the Governor’s partial veto was unconstitutional and thus a nullity. Also, this Court rejects the invitation or suggestion by counsel in this case to reconsider and overrule our case law. Mississippi has a long history with these issues, and many other sister states have looked to our case law for guidance in their own constitutional interpretations. We find that the principles of our case law are still valid and soundly reasoned and should not be overruled.

¶ 2. On April 9, 2002, Governor Ronnie Musgrove (the Governor) approved Sections 1 and 2 of SB 3163 which addressed funding for prisons and vetoed Section 3. Following the partial veto, the Speaker of the House of Representatives requested an official opinion from the Attorney General on the partial veto. The Attorney General issued an opinion on April 11, 2002, which characterized the vetoed language as a condition and not an appropriation. Thus, in the opinion of the Attorney General, the Governor’s veto of Section 3 was an improper execution of veto powers pursuant to Miss. Const, art. 4 § 73.

¶ 3. On August 2, 2002, Delta Correctional Facility Authority (Delta) filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a verified complaint in the Chancery Court of Leflore County to enjoin the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Governor from closing the Delta Correctional Facility. Delta contended that the Governor and MDOC’s termination of its contract for private housing of prisoners, was incorrect because the Governor’s partial veto was unconstitutional. Delta sought declaratory and injunctive relief to affirm the contract and prohibit MDOC from reducing the number of inmates at the facility.

¶ 4. On August 5, 2002, Chancellor William G. Willard, Jr., granted the TRO which required the operation of the prison until such time as a hearing could be conducted on the issues. On August 22, 2002, the Attorney General intervened, without objection from the parties, to argue the question of constitutional validity of the partial veto. On August 26, 2002, a one-day trial was conducted. On September 3, 2002, the chancellor issued a sixteen page written opinion which ruled that the partial veto violated Art. 4, § 73 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, relying upon the authority of State v. Holder, 76 Miss. 158, 23 So. 643 (1898) and Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998 (Miss.1995). Accordingly, the chancellor found that SB 3163 was valid law in its entirety.

¶ 5. On September 5, 2002, the Governor and MDOC appealed. Delta did not appeal in this matter, however, as stated above the Attorney General intervened in the matter, without objection, and has responded with a brief as the appellee to the Governor’s and MDOC’s appeal in this matter.

FACTS

¶ 6. On October 3, 2001, MDOC and Delta signed a Residential Services Agreement. Delta was a private prison in Le-flore County. The terms of the agreement included that Delta would house inmates at the facility for a two year period from October 3, 2001, to October 3, 2003. The contract stated in part the following:

Section 2.1 Term. A. The term of this Agreement shall be for two (2) years commencing on October 3, 2001 and ending on October 3, 2003. This Agreement is subject to annual appropriations as set forth in Section 8.6 of this Agreement.
Section 8.6 Termination Dtie to Unavailability of Funds. The payment of money by the Department under any provisions hereto is contingent upon the availability of funds appropriated by the Legislature of the State to pay the sums pursuant to this Agreement. In the event funds for this Agreement become unavailable due to non-appropriation, the State shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without penalty or obligation, except for the obligation to pay for services already provided.

On April 1, 2002, the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2002 Regular Session passed SB 3163. The bill provided for MDOC appropriations for the fiscal year of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The total amount of appropriations for MDOC was $250,190,746.00 of which no more than $54,726,714.00 could be spent for the funding of private prisons. SB 3163 states in part:

An Act making an appropriation for the support and maintenance of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and to pay the expenses of counties for holding state prisoners in county jails, for fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
Section 1: The following sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the State General Fund not otherwise appropriated, for the support and maintenance of the Mississippi Department of Corrections for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002, and ending
June 30, 2003 .$233,734,329.00. Section 2: The following sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any money in the special fund in the State Treasury to the credit of the Mississippi Department of Corrections which is collected by or otherwise become available for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the Department, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2003 .$ 16,456,417.00.
Section 3. Of the funds appropriated under the provisions of Sections 1 and 2, not more than the amounts set forth below shall be expended for the respective major objects or purposes of expenditure:
PRIVATE PRISONS
FUNDING
General Funds 54,726,714.00.
Special Funds. 0.00.
Total. 54,726,714.00.
Any transfers or escalations shall be made in accordance with the terms, conditions and procedures established by law, except that no transfers shall be made which reduce funds allocated in Section 3 to Regional Facilities or Private Prisons.

Thereafter, on April 9, 2002, the Governor approved Sections 1 and 2 of SB 3163, but struck or vetoed a portion of Section 3. The Speaker of the House of Representatives requested an official opinion from the Attorney General on the partial veto. On April 11, 2002, the Attorney General issued his opinion stating in part:

The portions of ... SB 3163 which the governor attempted to partially veto do not provide for the appropriations, but rather set forth the conditions under which the money appropriated elsewhere in the bill may be spent, i.e., for the funding of various divisions and programs of the agency.
^ ❖ #
Therefore this office is of the opinion that he governor’s action in attempting to veto portions of Section 3 of Senate Bill No. 3163 ... constitutes an improper exercise of his Section 73 veto powers.
* * DC * *
Section I of the Bill makes a separate and distinct appropriation of money from the general fund to the Department of Corrections. Section 2 of the bill makes an additional separate and distinct appropriation of money from special funds to the Department of Corrections. Section 3, on the other hand, does not provide for an appropriation, but rather sets forth the conditions under which the money appropriated by Sections 1 and 2 may be spent ... It states “Of the funds appropriated under the provisions of Sections 1 and 2, not more than the amounts set forth below shall be expended for the respective major objects of expenditure.”

The opinion effectively concluded that the Governor’s veto exceeded his authority pursuant to Section 73 of the Mississippi Constitution. On August 2, 2002, Delta filed this action in the Chancery Court of Leflore County.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether provisions of a prison appropriations bill (SB 3163, 2002 Regular Session) allocating a specific amount of money for private prison funding and prohibiting that money from being spent on anything else are “parts” of the appropriations bill that are thereby subject to veto under Section 73 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890?

¶ 7. Prior to addressing the issue of whether the Governor vetoed an actual “appropriation” or a “condition” of an appropriation, a framework of some background information and general case history of similar issues presented and ruled upon by this Court is helpful to resolve the question before us today.

A. Provisions of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890.

¶ 8. Article 4 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, includes § 69 which concerns the contents of appropriation bills, § 72 which concerns the process of a governor’s approval or denial of a bill and the corresponding legislative veto override process, and § 73 which concerns a governor’s veto power of appropriation bills. Each of these sections are of importance in the general understanding of the case sub ju-dice. Section 69 states:

General appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations to defray the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government; to pay interest on state bonds, and to support the common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject. Legislation shall not be engrafted on the appropriation bills, but the same may prescribe the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and for what purposes paid.

Miss. Const, art. 4, § 69 (emphasis added). Section 72 states:

Every Bill which shall pass both Houses shall be presented to the Governor of the state. If he approve, he shall sign it; but if he does not approve, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds (2/3) of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other House, by which, likewise, it shall be reconsidered; and if approved by two-thirds (2/3) of that House, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the Governor within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after it has been presented to him, it shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by adjournment, prevented its return, in which case such Bill shall be a law unless the Governor shall veto it within fifteen (15) days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him, and such Bill shall be returned to the Legislature, with his objections, within three (3) days after the beginning of the next session of the Legislature.

Id. § 69 (emphasis added). Section 73 states:

The governor may veto parts of any appropriation bill, and approve parts of the same, and the portions approved shall be law.

Id. § 73 (emphasis added).

¶ 9. Thus, Section 69 provides that legislation cannot be engrafted on to an appropriation bill, but that the conditions to draw the money and the purpose for which the money will be paid may be prescribed in the. appropriation bill. Section 72 provides, in part, for a legislative override of every bill and the legislative override process of a two-thirds (2/3) vote of both Houses to overturn a governor’s veto. On the other hand, Section 73 specifically concerns appropriations bills as opposed to “every bill” and does not provide for a legislative override process.

B. Prior Case Law

¶ 10. This Court has ruled on questions concerning whether an “appropriation” or merely a “condition” of an appropriation was vetoed by a governor in State v. Holder, 76 Miss. 158, 23 So. 643 (1898); Colbert v. State, 86 Miss. 769, 39 So. 65 (1905); and Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998 (Miss. 1995).

¶ 11. In State v. Holder, decided within 8 years of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, this Court found that a governor could not veto a condition of a bill. Holder, 23 So. at 645. Indeed, this Court provided that every bill has three parts which include “[t]he purpose of the bill, the sum appropriated for the purpose, and the conditions upon which the appropriation shall become available.” Holder, 23 So. at 645 (emphasis added). This Court commented that the result would be “monstrous” if a governor was allowed to make an appropriation into law yet veto either the purpose or conditions, or both, in the process. Id. This result would frustrate the legislative intent unless the legislature then passed the purpose or condition by a two-thirds (2/3) vote. Id. The Holder Court also commented on the meaning of § 73:

The true meaning of section 73 is that an appropriation bill made up of several parts (that is, distinct appropriations), different, separable, each complete without the other, which may be taken from the bill without affecting the others, which may be separated into different parts complete in themselves, may be approved, and become law in accordance with the legislative will, while others of like character may be disapproved, and put before the legislature again, dissociated from the other appropriations.

Id. See also Fordice, 651 So.2d at 1002. This Court further stated:

To allow a single bill, entire, inseparable, relating to one thing, containing several provisions, all complementary of each other, and constituting one whole, to be picked to pieces, and some of the pieces approved, and others vetoed, is to divide the indivisible; to make of one, several; to distort and pervert legislative action, and by veto make a two-thirds vote necessary to preserve what a majority passed, allowable as to the entire bill, but inapplicable to a unit composed of divers complementary parts, the whole passed because of each.

Holder, 23 So. at 645. See also Fordice, 651 So.2d at 1002. Likewise in Fordice, this Court held that then-Governor Ford-ice impermissibly vetoed a condition prescribed by the legislature on twenty-seven appropriations bills rather than a specific appropriation. Id. at 1002. Fordice, a 1995 case decided almost 100 years after Holder, reiterated the language, reasoning and law in Holder. In Colbert, a case involving bonds rather than appropriations, reinforced the authority that the Legislature holds in Mississippi based upon the Constitution. Colbert, 39 So. at 66. Specifically, the legislative branch of government has “control of the purse strings.” Id. This Court further held:

Indeed, it is the supreme legislative prerogative, indispensable to the independence and integrity of the Legislature, and not to be surrendered or abridged, save by the Constitution itself, without disturbing the balance of the system and endangering the liberties of the people. The right of the Legislature to control the public treasury, to determine the sources from which the public revenues shall be derived and the objects upon which they shall be expended, to dictate the time, the manner, and the means both of their collection and disbursement, is firmly and inexpugnably established in our political system.

Id.

C. The Arguments

¶ 12. Both the Governor and the Attorney General outline a general background in which to understand the history of appropriation bills and the veto powers of the legislative and executive branch of government. The Attorney General contends that the Legislature placed a “condition” upon the approximately $251 million appropriated to MDOC. He argues that Section 1 and 2 of SB 3163 appropriate $251 million in general funds ($233,734,329) and special funds ($16,456,417) while Section 3 only caps, and does not appropriate, the private prison spending of not more than approximately $54 million in funds. When looking at SB 3163, an eleven-page document, as a whole, Section 3 in and of itself spans approximately five pages and includes funding for various areas including support, medical services, parole board, farming operations, private prisons, and regional facilities.

¶ 13. The Attorney General states that according to case law, there is a bright line test for partial vetoes consisting of (1) a veto of a complete appropriation with a purpose, sum, and conditions, and (2) the partial veto of the item must be distinct and separate and not affect another portion of the bill. Fordice, 651 So.2d at 1002; Holder, 23 So. at 645. The Attorney-General maintains that Sections 1 and 2 of the bill appropriate funds by stating in part the same language that “The following sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated.... ” See SB 3163. On the other hand, Section 3 of the bill begins “Of the funds appropriated under the provisions of Section 1 and 2, not more than .... ” which the Attorney General maintains is a “condition” placed on the appropriation. Comparing Governor Fordice’s attempt to exercise a partial veto by striking a provision that placed a cap on the number of employees of 86 and inserting 84 and Governor Musgrove’s striking a provision that placed a cap of not more than $54 million, the Attorney General concludes that the struck item is a condition and not an appropriation.

¶ 14. Further, the Attorney General contends that the language of Section 3 has none of the indicia of an appropriations because the no more than $54 million cap is not an appropriation of a specific or certain sum of money since MDOC is not required to spend $54 million or any amount of private prisons. The term private prison is not a specific purpose because it is open ended and does not specify any particular prison nor tie the funds to specific expenditure. In addition, the Attorney General maintains that the Governor’s contention that the partial veto of Section 3 resulted in no funds for private prisons, since the $251 million was reduced by $54 million, runs afoul of case law that any partial veto must not affect any other non-vetoed portion of a bill. Fordice, 651 So.2d at 1002; Holder, 23 So. at 645.

¶ 15. The Governor argues that the chancery court’s interpretation of Section 73 weakens the checks and balances of the governmental branches given by the Constitution and dilutes the chief executive officer’s decision making power. In addition, the Governor maintains that Holder and Fordice are not controlling in the case sub judice. The Governor argues that in Holder, the vetoed language did not contain a specific amount of money designated for a specific purpose, but rather “requirements” that had to be satisfied before dispersal of the funds (i.e., conditions). The Governor argues that in Fordice, there was no veto of “an actual amount of money allocated for a specific purpose.” Here, the Governor contends that the veto was a classic appropriation because the struck provision allocated “a definite maximum amount of money to be spent in a specific purpose, and prohibit[ed] the money from being spent on anything else.” That being, $54 million for private prisons and for nothing else.

¶ 16. Further, the Governor contends that the reasoning used in Holder and Fordice is based upon a distortion of the language contained in Section 73. Section 73, according to the Governor, states that a governor “may veto parts of any appropriation bill ....” (emphasis added). Thus, the Governor maintains that the attempt by Holder and Fordice to distinguish a “distinct appropriation” from a “condition” of an appropriation and to allow partial veto of the distinct appropriation only, is unsound. Like Section 69 which addresses the Legislature’s ability to prescribe conditions in appropriation bills, the Governor asserts that the framers could have included the term “conditions” in Section 73. However, the Governor argues that Section 73 does not restrict the partial veto of a condition, rather the section allows a partial veto of “parts of any appropriation bill” which includes a “condition” or “appropriation.”

D. The Chancery Court Ruling

¶ 17. The chancery court’s opinion provided a general history of the Constitution as well as an examination of Sections 69, 72, and 73 and the prior case law of Holder and Fordice. Based upon evidence, the Constitution and case law, the chancellor determined that the Governor’s partial veto of SB 3163, Section 3, was unconstitutional and thus a nullity. According to the chancellor, Sections 1 and 2 reflected appropriations of funds while Section 3 was a condition. The chancellor noted that the Governor did not exercise a partial veto of Sections 1 or 2, however, his veto message made clear that only language in Section 3 were subject to his partial veto. The chancellor ruled in part:

This language in Section 3 as approved clearly sets forth conditions for the use of the appropriated funds under Sections 1 and 2 and clearly meets the guideline emanating from the Fordice and Holder decisions ... Neither of the provisions “not approved” by the Governor in Section 3 are an entire, separate and distinct appropriation and neither is subject to the partial veto authority granted to a governor under Section 73, Article 4 of the 1890 Constitution as well as Holder and Fordice.

Comparing other senate bills to SB 3163, the chancellor found that the language in SB 3163 was not unlike these bills in its organization of an appropriation in an initial section of the bill followed by another section that stated “[o]f the funds appropriated [above], not more that the amounts set forth below shall be expended for the respective major objects or purposed of expenditure.” This language is similar of course to the language in SB 3163, Section 3. The chancellor also determined that “[t]he attempted partial veto if allowed to stand would effect other parts ot[of| Senate Bill 3163 not vetoed in contradiction of Fordice and Holder.” Lastly, the chancellor also dismissed the issue of whether applying Fordice and Holder here would practically mean that the Governor would be prohibited from exercising a partial veto to any section of SB 3163. See FN 1. In reaching his decision, the chancellor stated that Section 73 was in place to guard against the “evils of omnibus appropriation bills.” Holder, 23 So. at 644. The chancellor then directed attention to other sections of the bill that could be partially vetoed, namely Sections 16 and 17.

E. Analysis

¶ 18. As the highest state court, this Court has the proper authority and responsibility to interpret the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. This Court has determined constitutional questions concerning the partial veto powers of a governor in the past in State v. Holder, 23 So. at 645, and Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998. The Governor provides case authority from other jurisdictions pertaining to the question of an appropriation verses a condition. While the parties provide worthwhile case authority, we find that the conclusions of other state courts applying their constitutional provisions and case law to specific legal issues are not controlling in Mississippi. The history and evolution of Mississippi constitutional provisions and case law interpretations of those provisions are unique. This Court applied well-reasoned principles to the interpretation of constitutional provisions and subsequent legislation for almost 100 years. This Court finds that these principles and reasoning still stand today.

¶ 19. The Governor struck a portion of Section 3 of SB 8163, we find that this section was but a condition of Sections 1 and 2 which actually appropriated the funds by the Legislature. The Governor made clear that he exercised a partial veto on only a portion of Section 3 and not any veto on the appropriating Sections 1 or 2. Clearly, Section 69 of the Constitution allows the Legislature to “prescribe the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and for what purposes paid.” Miss. Const., Art. 4, § 69. The bill as written, this Court finds, clearly makes Section 3 “[o]f the funds appropriated under the provisions of Sections 1 and 2, not more than the amounts set forth below ...” contingent upon the preceding provisions of Sections 1 and 2 both of which state “[t]he following sum, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated.... ” The language of the bill makes Sections 3 reliant upon Sections 1 and 2 and, in this case, thus, a condition of these sections.

¶20. Further, this Court finds that the executive branch of government through a governor’s use of a partial veto may not thwart or sabotage the legislative intent. Holder; 23 So. at 645. Indeed, an “executive” or governor in this instance, “in every republican form of government, has only a qualified and destructive legislative function, and never creative legislative power.” Id. Thus, we find that the Governor’s veto here cannot inhibit the legislative intent of the bill, nor can his veto create new legislation. Indeed, both Holder and Fordice warned against allowing a single bill to be picked to pieces resulting in dividing “the indivisible” and frustrating legislative intent. Id. See also Fordice, 651 So.2d at 1002. Accordingly, this Court finds that the partial veto of SB 3163 exercised by the Governor was an unconstitutional veto of a condition of an appropriation bill as written and thus a nullity. Holder, 23 So. at 645.

CONCLUSION

¶ 21. For the reasons cited above, this Court finds that the Leflore County Chancery Court correctly found that the Governor’s partial veto of SB 3163 was unconstitutional and thus a nullity and that SB 3163 became law in its entirety in the form as passed by the Legislature. Therefore, the chancery court’s judgment is affirmed.

¶ 22. AFFIRMED.

SMITH, C.J., CARLSON, GRAVES AND DICKINSON, JJ., CONCUR. COBB, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J. DIAZ, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

COBB, Presiding Justice,

dissenting.

¶ 23. In my view, a logical reading of the plain language of Art. 4, §§ 73 and 69 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 leads to the conclusion that the Governor’s veto of the two parts of SB 3163 in question, was lawful and proper. Thus, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 24. The following steps outline the process by which I reach that conclusion:

A. There is no dispute that SB 3163 is a general appropriation bill.
B. Art. 4, § 73 states “The governor may veto parts of any appropriation bill....”
C. Art. 4, § 69 states (in pertinent part) what general appropriation bills shall contain: “[g]eneral appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations to defray the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government.” Clearly the MDOC is a department of the executive branch. Clearly SB 3163 is the general appropriation bill for MDOC, providing $233.7 million from the State General Fund and $16.5 million from the MDOC special fund, totalling more than a $250 million appropriation to MDOC.
D. Art. 4, § 69 also states what general appropriate bills shall not contain: “[legislation shall not be engrafted on the appropriation bills.... ” The language which in my view violates Section 69, is found buried in the very last sentence of the five pages which comprise Section 3 of SB 3163, stating “[a]ny transfers or escalations shall be made in accordance with the terms, conditions, and procedures established by law, except that no transfers shall be made which reduce funds allocated in Section 3 to Regional Facilities or Private Prisons.” (emphasis added). This appears to be a classic case of “engraft-ing” if ever there was one.

¶ 25. In essence this bill, as sent to the Governor, mandated that the MDOC must spend the entire $54,726,714 to fund private prisons in FY 2003. Period. That’s it. No matter if there is a serious shortfall of revenue available to fund state government due to inaccurate estimations of expected revenue, forcing a reduction of the total MDOC funding. No matter whether there are any prisoners that need to be housed in private prisons. No matter what other emergency or unforeseen contingency might arise within MDOC which would necessitate the transfer of funds to or from other major objects of expenditure within the MDOC appropriation. As correctly stated in the Governor’s veto message of April 9, 2002, “[t]his special restriction on transfer nullifies general law authorizing agency heads to transfer up to 15% of their budget between categories as changes occur and needs demand.” This $54.7 million would have to be spent on private prisons, no matter what.

¶ 26. It is easy for the casual or complacent reader to overlook this engrafting, however, because the up-front and obvious part of Section 3 of SB 3163 which speaks to funding of private prisons states that “not more than the amounts set forth below shall be expended for the respective major objects or purposes of expenditure,” but not until page six does it state that the $54,726,714 must be spent on private prisons.

¶27. While State v. Holder, 76 Miss. 158, 23 So. 643 (1898) and Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So.2d 998 (Miss.1995), cited by the majority, are instructive, they are not controlling in this case, and in my view, it is not necessary to overrule them in order to reverse the trial court’s ruling. They are quite distinguishable on their facts. It is unfortunate that both these cases have employed a torturous analysis of the difference in “conditions” and “parts” of appropriations, which might be expected to be applied in every case involving the partial veto of an appropriation bill. That is not, however, necessary in the case before us.

¶ 28. Section 73 of our Constitution is, in essence, a “check” given to the Governor to prevent legislative micromanagement of executive branch departments, and thus is an integral part of the “checks and balances” ingrained in our constitutional system. See Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain, 441 So.2d 1329 (Miss.1983). Contrary to the reasoning of the chancellor, which is approved by the majority, in my view Section 73 contemplates that even if an appropriation bill covers “but one subject” as required by Section 69, the Governor may still veto parts of it. If the Legislature tries to tell the executive branch exactly how to spend a sum of money through the use of a line item, the Governor has the right to veto that item. The Governor, however, has to pay a price for the exercise of this power, i.e., unless the veto is overridden, the money will not be spent at all. This Court’s established doctrine forbidding the veto of “conditions” means the Governor must veto the “appropriation”, and not just change the language as was done in Fordice. Otherwise, the Governor would be writing legislation.

¶ 29. The position taken by the Delta Correctional Facility Authority, and adopted by the chancellor, would render this check on legislative power practically useless. If §§ 1 and 2 of SB 3163 are the only “appropriation” sections, so that a Governor cannot veto a line item in an appropriation bill, then § 73 is essentially written out of the Constitution. It reduces the veto power of the Governor to merely a power to veto the whole bill. That would render § 73 superfluous, because § 72 already provides for vetoes of entire bills.

¶ 30. On the other hand, the Governor’s alternative position, i.e. that a Governor should be able to veto any part of a bill (presumably including individual words and phrases) is untenable. That would allow the Governor to use the veto power to essentially write legislation that the Legislature did not initially approve and that would become law unless there is a successful affirmative two-thirds vote of the Legislature to override the veto.

¶ 31. The Governor’s veto is consistent with Holder and Fordice. In both those cases, the forbidden vetoes left the appropriation intact but changed certain conditions on its expenditure. For that reason, the vetoes were improper. Here, the money [the line item appropriation to fund private prisons] could not be spent at all [absent an override of the veto], and thus the veto of the line item was a valid exercise of the Governor’s power under § 73.

¶ 32. The Legislature may make a line-item appropriation and, if the Governor disputes it, the Legislature may override his veto by a two-thirds majority. This forces a vote on that line item, and that line item alone, a process which isolates the disputed provision for consideration by itself, free from any political maneuvering which might have previously occurred in drafting the entire bill. These balancing powers would be sufficient to enable the Legislature to maintain control over the power to make law, to tax, and to spend, and at the same time to protect the public against untoward legislative maneuvering and interference with executive powers.

¶ 33. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Governor’s action here was a veto of a “part” of an “appropriation bill” and thus proper under Section 73. Therefore, I would reverse and render the chancellor’s judgment.

WALLER, P.J., joins this opinion.

      . In addition to ruling that the Governor's partial veto was unconstitutional in this instance, the order also stated that SB 3163 stood as law in its entirety and the appropriation of approximately $251 million with authority to spend approximately $54 million for fiscal year July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003 remained in effect. The order also stated that MDOC’s termination of the contract with Delta was improper and accordingly remained a binding agreement and in full force and effect. The chancellor, however, denied any other relief sought by Delta.

      . SB 3163 also prohibited MDOC from decreasing the private prison funds by 10% to offset any emergency in the MDOC budget. See Miss.Code Ann. § 27-104-17(2).

      . An amicus curiae brief was submitted to this Court on behalf of Senator Hob Bryan. The brief suggests that prior case law is sufficient in deciding this case and that there is no need to consider overruling the prior cases. However, the brief suggests that the pursuant to § 73 "parts” includes line items. Further, the brief argues that a governor may veto a line item if the legislature attempts to tell the executive branch of government exactly how to spend the money.