author: LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

text:
    Wade H. HARDY Jr. and Norma F. Hardy, Appellants v. Gene William HARDY, Hilda M. Hardy, Frank Lee Conway Jr., Karen H. Conway and Julie Liville, Appellees
    NO. 2016-CA-01668-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    March 27, 2018
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: KENT E. SMITH
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: JENNIFER LEE SHACKELFORD
    BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.
   LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. Wade H. Hardy Jr. (Hamp) and his wife Norma appeal the Marshall County Chancery Court's decision to deny an easement by necessity to use Gene Hardy's portion of Hardy Lane. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. In 1958, W.H. Hardy acquired title to an eighty-acre parcel of land in Marshall County, Mississippi. In 1977, his sons Hamp and Gene, along with their wives, purchased the eighty-acre parcel. In February 1992, Hamp and Gene divided the eighty-acre parcel equally between themselves into two forty-acre parcels. They used a road designated as "Hardy Lane" as the access point to the properties. Although the road is reflected on the Marshall County tax map, the county never adopted Hardy Lane as a county road or maintained or improved it. The parties and their families lived on these two forty-acre parcels and all mutually used Hardy Lane as the ingress and egress to their homes.

¶ 3. In 2006, Hamp and Norma moved to Aberdeen. Until that time, they had used Hardy Lane daily without incident for access to their "home place," which refers to their home, shop, barn, silo, and RV cover positioned on their parcel. For several years after they moved, Hamp would return twice monthly to mow and otherwise maintain the property. However, due to expense and travel, Hamp discontinued visits to or maintenance of his parcel, and the land became overgrown. Eventually, Hamp expressed his desire to sell his land. To obstruct the road from use by any potential buyers, Gene parked his tractor at the end of his driveway, in the middle of Hardy Lane. Gene never denied Hamp or Norma access down Hardy Lane, but Gene expressly stated he would not grant an easement to any potential buyers. Hamp maintained that he needed the easement providing access to the home place in order to sell the land.

¶ 4. Hamp and Norma filed suit in chancery court seeking an order declaring them the owners of an implied easement or easement by necessity. After a bench trial, the chancellor held, "in this case ... there is an alternative route that [Hamp] can use and get to his property and, therefore, this is not an easement by necessity." Hamp and Norma now appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 5. This Court "will not disturb the findings of a chancellor when supported by substantial evidence unless the chancellor abused his discretion, was manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or applied an erroneous legal standard." Smith v. Pettigrew , 223 So.3d 173, 176 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Wilburn v. Wilburn , 991 So.2d 1185, 1190 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008) ). We review questions of law de novo. Id.

DISCUSSION

¶ 6. Hamp argues the chancellor erred by failing to find an easement by necessity or an implied easement over Hardy Lane. Hamp argues that (1) the chancellor applied the wrong legal standard and (2) that Hamp proved all the elements of an easement by necessity.

¶ 7. "An 'easement by necessity' and an 'implied easement' are the same." King v. Gale , 166 So.3d 589, 594 (¶ 25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). "A claimant seeking an easement by necessity has the burden of proof and must establish that he is entitled to a right of way across another's land." Davidson v. Collins , 195 So.3d 825, 827 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting King , 166 So.3d at 597 (¶ 38) ). "An easement by necessity requires proof that (1) the easement is necessary; (2) the dominant and servient estates were once part of a commonly owned parcel; (3) the implicit right-of-way arose at the time of severance from the common owner." Borne v. Estate of Carraway , 118 So.3d 571, 584 (¶ 34) (Miss. 2013). "To satisfy this burden, [the claimants] must show strict necessity; that they possess no other means of access to their property." Haik v. Gammill , 122 So.3d 771, 778 (¶ 26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).

¶ 8. It is undisputed that the parties to this appeal hold land derived from a once commonly owned eighty-acre parcel. The parties also agree that Hardy Lane was used as the access point for ingress and egress to Hamp's home place after the eighty-acre tract was severed. The parties disagree, however, regarding whether the easement is necessary. Hamp argues that the chancery court erred by holding him to a standard of strict necessity instead of reasonable necessity.

¶ 9. For support, Hamp cites Fourth Davis Island Land Co. v. Parker , 469 So.2d 516 (Miss. 1985), arguing that "an easement would be granted if it were highly convenient or essential to the full enjoyment of the land." Hamp contends that the easement is highly convenient and essential to the full enjoyment of the home place-not just the land. However, the supreme court in Fourth Davis Island acknowledged the distinction "between ways of necessity, which require strict necessity for their creation and implied easements of things not strictly necessary, but highly convenient or essential to the full enjoyment of the land"-such as utility easements. Id. at 520 (citing Bonelli Bros. v. Blakemore , 66 Miss. 136, 5 So. 228 (1888) ).

¶ 10. In Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc. , 58 So.3d 703, 707 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), this Court recognized that the supreme court in Fourth Davis Island "held that there is one standard of proof that applies to an attempt to obtain an implied easement for utility services, and a different standard of proof that applies to an attempt to obtain an implied easement for the purpose of ingress and egress over another landowner's property." This Court further recognized that "one must prove strict necessity to obtain an implied easement involving a 'way of necessity.' " Id. In doing so, this Court acknowledged its previous "misapplications of the supreme court's decisions," where we applied the reasonable-necessity standard to ways-of-necessity easements. Id. Harkness thereby abrogated Daley v. Hughes , 4 So.3d 364 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ; Sturdivant v. Todd , 956 So.2d 977 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) ; Swan v. Hill , 855 So.2d 459 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ;

and Miss. Power Co. v. Fairchild , 791 So.2d 262 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).

¶ 11. Hamp claims that he has a necessary right of way over Hardy Lane for access to his home place; thus the instant case involves a claim for a way of necessity-not an easement for utilities. The strict-necessity standard applies.

¶ 12. At trial, Hamp testified there was, in fact, another access to his forty acres-an unnamed driveway from Highway 309 put in by his son. Hamp complained, however, that this access point was one-half mile farther north and only provided access to his property and not to his home place. Hamp's wife Norma testified that the route from the north was not passable because there were trees, ditches, and it was overgrown. The chancellor personally visited the land and opined that the unnamed access road went across almost sixty percent of the property and that it would be feasible to make a road to the home place. The chancellor found that the easement over Hardy Lane was not necessary because Hamp had an alternative means of access to his land.

¶ 13. Nevertheless, Hamp argues that the easement is necessary because improving or extending the unnamed access road would involve disproportionate expense and that such a project would exceed the value of the land. Hamp testified that extending or improving the unnamed access road to the home place would be cost prohibitive. Yet, Hamp did not present any evidence regarding the value of the land or costs of establishing a road on the alternative route. "Where one seeks to obtain a 'way of access' easement by necessity but submits no evidence as to the allegedly higher costs of an alternative route, a trial court will not err in declining to award an easement." Swenson v. Brouillette , 163 So.3d 957, 965 (¶ 29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Harkness , 58 So.3d at 708 (¶ 14) ). "Simply stating that it would appear to be 'very expensive' to access property by some other means is not sufficient." Id. Hamp's claim that the alternative route would be cost prohibitive was not supported and thus not sufficient.

¶ 14. The chancellor's finding that the easement was not necessary because Hamp had an alternative means of access to his land is supported by substantial and credible evidence. Furthermore, Hamp presented no evidence regarding allegedly higher costs of an alternative route. Therefore, we affirm the chancellor's decision declining Hamp an easement by necessity over Hardy Lane.

¶ 15. AFFIRMED.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR. GREENLEE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

      Hamp and Norma also sought to establish a prescriptive easement, which the chancellor denied. However, Hamp and Norma do not appeal the chancellor's decision denying the prescriptive easement.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Meika Desean BRITTON a/k/a M. Desean Britton a/k/a Meika D. Britton a/k/a Meike Britton a/k/a Meika Britton a/k/a Meiko Desean Britton, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
    NO. 2017-CP-00046-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    March 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 22, 2018
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MEIKA DESEAN BRITTON (PRO SE)
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD
    BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND TINDELL, JJ.
   LEE, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. In this appeal, we must determine if Meika Britton's postrelease supervision (PRS) was properly revoked. Finding no error, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Britton was convicted of child exploitation and sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), followed by ten years of PRS. Upon release from prison, Britton was charged with committing child exploitation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The State moved to revoke Britton's PRS based upon his new crimes and his failure to pay court-ordered fees. After a revocation hearing conducted over two days on April 18, 2016, and May 13, 2016, the trial court revoked Britton's PRS and ordered him to serve ten years in the custody of the MDOC.

¶ 3. Britton subsequently filed a motion to "reinstate" his PRS. Treating this as a motion for postconviction relief (PCR), the trial court found Britton's arguments to be without merit and denied his motion. Britton now appeals, asserting the following issues: (1) minimum due-process requirements were not met at his revocation hearing; (2) counsel provided ineffective assistance; (3) insufficient evidence was presented to support the revocation; and (4) his cell phone was searched without a valid search warrant.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 4. Absent a finding that the "ruling was clearly erroneous[,]" this Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a PCR motion. Jones v. State , 994 So.2d 829, 830 (¶ 4) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Kirksey v. State , 728 So.2d 565, 567 (¶ 8) (Miss. 1999) ). "However, when issues of law are raised, the proper standard of review is de novo." Steele v. State , 991 So.2d 176, 177 (¶ 3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (citing Brown v. State , 731 So.2d 595, 598 (¶ 6) (Miss. 1999) ).

DISCUSSION

I. Due-Process Requirements

¶ 5. In his first issue, Britton argues that minimum due-process requirements were not met at his revocation hearing in the following ways: he did not receive adequate notice of the revocation hearing; the evidence against him was not disclosed prior to the revocation hearing; he was not permitted to confront the witnesses against him; and the trial court did not provide a statement of the evidence it relied upon for revoking his PRS. Britton also contends that he was denied a preliminary hearing.

¶ 6. The minimum due-process requirements for a probation-revocation hearing are:

(1) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (2) disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; (3) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer finds good cause for not allowing such confrontation); (5) a neutral and detached hearing body or officer; and (6) a written statement by the fact-finder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking the probation.

Loisel v. State , 995 So.2d 850, 852 (¶ 7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Payton v. State , 845 So.2d 713, 719 (¶ 22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 47-7-34(2) (Rev. 2015) ("Procedure for termination of [PRS] ... shall be conducted in the same manner as procedures for the revocation of probation and imposition of a suspended sentence....").

Notice of the Hearing

¶ 7. Britton contends that he did not receive the petition to revoke his PRS until the first day of his hearing, April 18, 2016. Although Britton did not receive the formal petition to revoke his PRS prior to the hearing, the record indicates Britton was notified of the charges against him. Britton was arrested on March 28, 2016, and posted bond on April 1, 2016. A summons was issued on April 11, 2016, setting April 18, 2016, as the date of the revocation hearing. Additionally, Britton admittedly filed several motions in advance of the revocation hearing, including a motion to dismiss the petition to revoke his PRS, a motion to suppress evidence, and a motion to dismiss the charges against him. This issue is without merit.

Disclosure of Evidence Against Him

¶ 8. Britton claims that the evidence against him was not provided until the morning of the second day of his revocation hearing, May 13, 2016. However, Britton did not raise this argument in his PCR motion. Thus, we decline to review it. Reese v. State , 21 So.3d 625, 628 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).

Right to Confront Witnesses

¶ 9. Britton claims he was not allowed to call one of the victims as a witness at the revocation hearing. Britton states that his attorney failed to subpoena this particular witness as Britton had requested. The trial court noted that Britton called several witnesses at the revocation hearing, but not the victim. And Britton did not inform the court that he required the testimony of the victim or request a continuance in order to have the victim subpoenaed. We find no error in the trial court's findings; thus, this issue is without merit.

Written Statement by Trial Court

¶ 10. Britton claims he was not given a written statement by the trial court detailing the reasons for revoking his PRS. In Grayson v. State , 648 So.2d 1129, 1134-35 (Miss. 1994), the supreme court noted that the failure to submit such a written finding does not violate due process where the trial court's oral opinion is contained in the record. At the conclusion of Britton's revocation hearing, the trial court stated that Britton had "done little to refute the serious charges and allegations" against him. The trial court further found that based upon the evidence presented, Britton had violated the terms of his PRS. In its order revoking Britton's PRS, the trial court explained that Britton had violated the terms of his PRS by "committing the new crime of child exploitation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor." This issue is without merit.

Preliminary Revocation Hearing

¶ 11. In its order denying relief, the trial court noted that Britton failed to raise this issue at his revocation hearing; thus, the issue regarding a lack of preliminary revocation hearing was waived. We agree. See Presley v. State , 48 So.3d 526, 528 (¶ 9) (Miss. 2010). Britton recognizes this and asks us to review his claim for plain error. Since Britton was entitled to a preliminary revocation hearing, he must show that prejudice resulted from the failure to hold a separate preliminary revocation hearing. See id. at 530 (¶ 13). If no prejudice is found and a formal revocation proceeding was held which met minimum due-process requirements as previously stated, then the failure to hold a preliminary hearing is harmless error. See id. at (¶ 15). Here, we find any error was harmless. At his revocation hearing, Britton was afforded due-process protections as required. He has failed to show any prejudice resulting from the lack of a preliminary revocation hearing. This issue is without merit.

II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

¶ 12. In his next issue, Britton claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court did not officially appoint an attorney to represent Britton; rather, the trial court "out of an abundance of caution" provided an attorney to assist Britton as stand-by counsel. This attorney did subpoena witnesses on Britton's behalf and moved for a continuance. However, Britton proceeded pro se-he filed motions, provided a witness list, and questioned the witnesses. In its order denying Britton's PCR motion, the trial court found that Britton was not entitled to counsel and failed to prove that any assistance provided by his stand-by counsel was ineffective based upon Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

¶ 13. On appeal, Britton claims the trial court forced him to proceed pro se. However, nothing in the record indicates this statement is true. In fact, Britton never asked for an appointed attorney and never complained about the performance of his stand-by counsel. "There is no per se right to appointed counsel at a revocation hearing." Henderson v. State , 12 So.3d 26, 30 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). We cannot find the trial court abused its discretion in denying Britton's requested relief. This issue is without merit.

III. Insufficient Evidence

¶ 14. Britton next argues that his revocation was based upon false testimony. We first note that Britton was never convicted of the crimes that his revocation was based upon. However, "a conviction is not necessary to revoke probation. Probation may be revoked upon a showing that the defendant 'more likely than not' violated the terms of probation." Younger v. State , 749 So.2d 219, 222 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (internal citation omitted).

¶ 15. While on PRS, Britton was arrested for child exploitation and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. During the hearing, the State presented evidence that Britton "more likely than not" provided minors with alcohol and cigarettes. There was also testimony that Britton asked a minor to film other minors engaging in sexual acts.

¶ 16. Britton's chief complaint concerns the testimony of Officer Brandon Rushing, an investigator with the Southaven Police Department. Officer Rushing had received complaints from concerned parents regarding text messages between their fourteen-year-old daughter and Britton, who was forty-six years old at the time. While investigating Britton, Officer Rushing gained access to Facebook Messenger conversations between Britton and two minor males, one fifteen years old and the other seventeen years old.

¶ 17. In the messages between Britton and the seventeen-year-old, Britton asked the boy to film a sexual act involving several other minors. At one point Britton wrote, "I want to see your _ _ _ _." The boy responded, "Hell, no." Officer Rushing interviewed the seventeen-year-old, who told Officer Rushing that he thought Britton wanted a picture of his penis. Officer Rushing testified that the seventeen-year-old interpreted Britton's request this way based upon prior messages with Britton where Britton referenced viewing a masturbation video of the seventeen-year-old.

Officer Rushing testified that Britton referenced this video several times during his exchange with the minor, at one point writing to the minor, "The best part was when you come and the face you make."

¶ 18. Britton claims that Officer Rushing should not have been allowed to assume Britton was asking for a picture of the child's penis. And that the trial court mistakenly relied upon Officer Rushing's testimony in revoking Britton's PRS. However, Officer Rushing clearly stated that he believed Britton was asking for a picture of the child's penis based upon his interview with the child and reading other messages between Britton and the child. Furthermore, the trial court did not rely solely upon this particular message in revoking Britton's PRS.

¶ 19. Officer Rushing also testified regarding the content of the conversations between Britton and the fifteen-year-old involving a request for Britton to buy him alcohol and cigarettes. In this conversation, Britton referenced a massage he had given the fifteen-year-old, stating, "But funny is on the massage you got hard LOL." After Britton demanded the child "admit the truth," the fifteen-year-old admitted that he became aroused during the massage.

¶ 20. Additionally, Officer Rushing interviewed the fourteen-year-old girl regarding the text messages between her and Britton. She told Officer Rushing that Britton had given alcohol to several of her friends, all of whom were minors at the time.

¶ 21. From the record, we cannot find the trial court erred in finding that Britton more likely than not had violated his PRS by contributing to the delinquency of a minor and committing child exploitation. This issue is without merit.

IV. Search Warrant

¶ 22. In a supplemental brief, Britton claims that his cell phone was searched without a valid warrant. However, Britton never raised this issue before the trial court; thus, the issue is procedurally barred. Reese , 21 So.3d at 629 (¶ 12). Regardless, Officer Rushing testified that he did get a search warrant to view the contents of Britton's cell phone. This issue is without merit.

¶ 23. AFFIRMED.

IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., BARNES, CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

      We note that this is Britton's second motion for postconviction relief. This Court affirmed the dismissal of his first PCR motion in Britton v. State , 130 So.3d 90, 92 (¶ 1) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). Ordinarily successive PCR motions are barred from our review. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-23(6) (Rev. 2015). However, a claim that a petitioner's conditional release was unlawfully revoked is an exception to the successive-writ bar. See id.


author: WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

text:
    Marquis D. SAUNDERS a/k/a Marquis Saunders a/k/a Marquise D. Saunders a/k/a Marquise Saunders, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
    NO. 2017-KA-00188-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    April 10, 2018
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: BARBARA WAKELAND BYRD, Jackson
    BEFORE IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
   WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. Marquis Saunders was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and one count of car theft in the Second Judicial District of Harrison County. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction and five years for car theft, with the sentences to run concurrently. Saunders filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), or for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. Saunders now appeals. After review of the record, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. After living in New York, Saunders moved to D'Iberville, Mississippi to stay with his girlfriend, Shantile Torres, and her daughter. Shantile and her daughter lived with Jamel Jones and his wife Maxine for four months prior to Saunders moving in with them. Testimony presented at trial stated that Saunders and Jones had an amicable relationship and that they never had any arguments or disagreements.

¶ 3. On the morning of January 31, 2015, Jones took Maxine to work in a white 2004 Ford Explorer SUV that the couple shared. Jones's daughter Starquasha Colon testified that she was supposed to ride with Jones to the store, but he left her. Shortly after Jones left their home, Colon testified that she heard what sounded like gunshots. Colon stated that she attempted to contact her father after hearing gunshots, but he did not answer her calls.

¶ 4. Colon stated that she went outside after hearing a commotion. Torres's daughter exclaimed that Saunders shot Jones. Colon shortly found her father lying face-down on the ground in blood. The autopsy revealed that Jones's cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. Colon also testified that she noticed the family's white SUV was gone.

¶ 5. Several neighbors testified that they heard about five or six gunshots that day. O.V. Smith stated that he actually saw Saunders fire two shots at Jones and then drive away in the family's white SUV. Approximately thirty minutes after the shooting, law enforcement officers found Saunders driving Jones's 2004 Ford Explorer. No gun ever was retrieved from the SUV; however, Saunders's hands tested positive for gunshot residue.

¶ 6. Following a trial, Saunders was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of car theft. He was sentenced to life in prison for murder and five years for his car theft conviction. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Saunders filed a JNOV motion, or for a new trial, which the trial court denied. Saunders now appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 7. "The standard of review for a denial of a motion for a JNOV is de novo." Bryant v. State , 151 So.3d 1025, 1029 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). "The Mississippi Supreme Court has stated this Court will affirm the denial of a motion for [a] JNOV if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict." Id. (quotation marks omitted).

¶ 8. Further, "[t]he standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion." Pritchett v. State , 201 So.3d 1095, 1097 (¶ 7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (citations omitted). "Abuse of discretion will only be found where a defendant shows clear prejudice from an undue lack of constraint on the prosecution or undue constraint on the defense." Id. "Furthermore, trial judges are afforded a high level of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence." Id.

DISCUSSION

Whether Exhibit S-23 was properly admitted.

A. Authentication

¶ 9. Saunders asserts that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit S-23, a screenshot of a single text message found on a phone in Saunders's possession at the time of his arrest. Saunders asserts that this exhibit violated Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901, which requires authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility.

¶ 10. "Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901, the authentication requirement is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Smith v. State , 136 So.3d 424, 432 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2014) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting M.R.E. 901(a) ). "Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility." Id. Moreover, "[a] party must make a prima facie showing of authenticity, and then the evidence goes to the jury, which ultimately will determine the evidence's authenticity." Id.

¶ 11. Officer Michele Carbine, who was an investigator with the D'Iberville Police Department during that time, testified that she was present when Inspector Galloway recovered 2 phones and took the screenshot of the text message. One was a T-Mobile flip phone and the other was a Samsung phone. Officer Carbine testified that the screenshot was taken from the Samsung phone and she was able to determine that the cell phone belonged to Shantile.

¶ 12. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[a] text message emanate[d] from a cell phone number assigned to the purported author ... has not typically been regarded as sufficient to support a finding of authenticity." Smith , 136 So.3d at 433 (¶ 20) (citing Tienda v. State , 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ). Further, the Smith court held that this circumstance, "without more, has [not] typically been regarded as sufficient to support a finding of authenticity." Id. However, the State offered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the text message's authenticity.

¶ 13. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the phone was recovered from a vehicle last seen driven by Saunders. In Walters v. State , 206 So.3d 524, 535 (¶ 32) (Miss. 2016), our supreme court held that "[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." See also M.R.E. 901(a). Further, "[a] party need only make a prima facie showing of authenticity, not a full argument on admissibility." Id.

¶ 14. Although Saunders objected to the admission of the screenshot, Saunders did not offer any testimony to rebut the authenticity of the message on the screenshot or the owner of the phone. Additionally, Saunders asserted Officer Carbine could testify as to the owner of the phone once the State laid the proper foundation. Furthermore, Saunders did not object when Officer Carbine testified that she was able to determine that the phone found shared the same number as the number registered to Shantile.

¶ 15. Moreover, "[o]nce a prima facie case is made, the evidence goes to the jury and it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence, not the court." Id. Therefore, we find that the State made a prima facie showing through Officer Carbine's testimony that the screenshot from the phone was authentic.

B. Hearsay

¶ 16. Saunders further asserts that the State's introduction of Officer Carbine's testimony regarding the screenshot of the text message contained inadmissible hearsay. "Hearsay is 'a statement that ... the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing, and a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.' " Jefferson v. State , 214 So.3d 1071, 1077 (¶ 18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (citing M.R.E. 801(c) ).

¶ 17. Saunders asserts that Officer Carbine was allowed to testify to the content of the text message which contained out-of-court statements made by individuals other than Officer Carbine. We disagree.

¶ 18. At trial, Saunders objected to the introduction of Exhibit S-23. In return, the trial court overruled the objection after the State agreed to not ask Officer Carbine about the content of the text message. However, when Officer Carbine testified about the information regarding the greyhound bus ticket, Saunders did not object. "The failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives the issue on direct appeal." Weems v. State , 63 So.3d 579, 584 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Wells v. State , 698 So.2d 497, 514 (Miss. 1997) ).

¶ 19. Procedural bar notwithstanding, Officer Carbine only testified that she was present when Investigator Galloway took the screenshot and why the screenshot was taken in the first place. Furthermore, S-23 was the picture of the message. Saunders had the opportunity to cross examine Officer Carbine regarding her statement and the text message. Accordingly, we find this issue is without merit.

¶ 20. AFFIRMED.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., CARLTON, FAIR, GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES AND WILSON, JJ., CONCUR IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.

      The record reflects that Shantile also was called "Shantike" by certain members of her family.

      The text message actually read: "Greyhound Biloxi, MS, to Albany, NY, 232.50 10 am Sunday the 1st day of February 2015." (Exhibit S-23).


author: BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:

text:
    Clyde CHATMAN, Jr. a/k/a Clyde Chatman a/k/a Little Clyde, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
    NO. 2016-KA-01285-COA
    Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
    October 17, 2017
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LAURA HOGAN TEDDER
    EN BANC.
    MODIFIED OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
   BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. The motion for rehearing is denied. The previous opinion of this Court is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place.

¶ 2. Clyde Chatman was convicted of the murder of Patrick Williams and sentenced to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole. After his post-trial motions were denied, he appealed, arguing the sufficiency and weight of the evidence do not support the verdict, and testimony regarding an accomplice's statement to law enforcement violated his right to confront witnesses under the Confrontation Clause. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 3. On the evening of March 27, 2012, Williams was visiting his girlfriend, Tanedra Christian, in Jonestown, Mississippi. While the two were talking and kissing on her front porch, a white car drove by her house, turned around, and came back up the road. Williams abruptly left and walked up the road toward his house, ignoring Christian's calling out after him. A few minutes later, Christian heard gunshots. Larry Wiley, a neighbor, and Toshema Crosby, the owner of a nearby gas station, also heard shooting, and Crosby found Williams lying on the ground outside her store with gunshot wounds. When she asked Williams who shot him, he replied: "Those mother f***ers from Friars Point." Crosby called 911 and contacted Williams's aunt, Shamon Williams. When Shamon arrived, Williams told her that "Little Clyde and them" had shot him and that they were driving a "white car." The first officer on the scene was Deputy Stephen James, who heard Williams say, "I'm gonna get those mother f***ers. They shot me." Williams died at the scene.

¶ 4. Law enforcement recovered .25-caliber shell casings in the road nearby; forensic testing indicated the casings were all fired from the same gun. By the following day, law enforcement had arrested Friars Point residents Chatman, John Battle, and Reginald Cox for Williams's murder. The three suspects were tested for gunshot residue (GSR) and submitted buccal swabs. Law enforcement also tested a white Crown Victoria titled to Chatman's mother for GSR and fingerprints, as well as a glove found in the back seat. A search was conducted for the weapon in Friars Point, Mississippi, but it was never located.

¶ 5. On May 30, 2013, Chatman, Battle, and Cox were co-indicted for deliberate-design murder. See Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2006). Chatman and Cox were tried on February 16-18, 2016, in Coahoma County Circuit Court.

¶ 6. Christian, Williams's girlfriend, testified that before Williams left her home, he said "something about he was tired of something." She also testified that Chatman had expressed a romantic interest in her, bringing her a toy bear and flowers on Valentine's Day. Shameka Cox, Cox's mother, also lived in Jonestown and said Cox and Chatman had visited her that evening. She noted it was odd since Cox never came to visit her.

¶ 7. Deputy Fernando Bee of the Coahoma County Sheriff's Department testified he had seen Chatman driving a white Crown Victoria in Jonestown the night Williams was shot. He noted two persons in the car with Chatman. Deputy Bee, who was off duty, was talking with another individual in the yard of a Jonestown home when he heard shooting. After he learned Williams had been shot, he went home to get ready for work and then returned to the scene. Chatman's sister later phoned Deputy Bee to inform him that Chatman wanted to turn himself in.

¶ 8. A forensic pathologist, Dr. Mark LeVaughn, testified that Williams sustained three gunshot wounds : two to the right side of his back, and one to the right forearm. He determined the shots were not fired at close range. DNA results for the rear passenger-door grip of the Crown Victoria and the glove found in the car "contained a profile consistent" with Chatman. Forensic testing also revealed "particles indicative of gunshot residue" on Chatman's palms. There were also GSR particles found on Battle's and Cox's hands and located "behind [the] driver seat and headrest."

¶ 9. Chatman testified that he was in Jonestown, driving the white Crown Victoria with the windows down. His version of events was that Williams ran up to his car and "attacked" him. Then Chatman heard gunshots and saw Battle shooting a gun. In shock, he drove home to Friars Point. He denied having a gun and shooting Williams. He admitted that he liked Christian, claiming the two had relations in the past. He had planned to drive by and see Christian that night in Jonestown, but Chatman insisted he and Cox went to Shameka's home instead.

¶ 10. Chatman was convicted of murder by a Coahoma County Circuit Court jury. Since he was a juvenile, the trial judge carefully weighed the factors outlined in Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), at a bifurcated sentencing hearing, and sentenced Chatman to life in prison with eligibility for parole. Chatman filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the trial court denied. He now argues on appeal Deputy Bee's testimony that Battle told law enforcement where to find the weapon violated the Confrontation Clause. He also challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the testimony concerning Battle's statements to police violated Chatman's right to confront witnesses.

¶ 11. Chatman claims that his right to confront witnesses was violated during the State's questioning of Deputy Bee about the search for the weapon, specifically when Deputy Bee testified that Battle told law enforcement where to look for the gun.

Q. Now, at some point, did your investigation lead you to search for a potential weapon?
A. It did.
Q. Okay. Where was that search done?
A. From Friars Point to ... 61 road.
....
Q. The information that you received to search for the weapon came from who?
A. John Battle.
....
A. We went out to the scene of where Battle said the weapon was tossed from the vehicle, but when we made it out there, they were working in the fields.... [W]e couldn't find anything.

The defense made no objection to this testimony, which waives this issue on appeal. "The failure to object to testimony at trial 'waives any assignment of error on appeal.' " Ross v. State , 16 So.3d 47, 57 (¶ 21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Johnson v. State , 477 So.2d 196, 214 (Miss. 1985) ).

¶ 12. Chatman acknowledges the failure to object at trial, but contends this Court should review this issue for plain error. The plain-error rule is applied "only if 'a defendant's substantive or fundamental rights are affected.' " Willie v. State , 204 So.3d 1268, 1279 (¶ 29) (Miss. 2016) (quoting Foster v. State , 148 So.3d 1012, 1018 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2014) ). This Court has held that a violation of the Confrontation Clause constitutes "a violation of a 'fundamental, substantive right.' " Ezell v. State , 132 So.3d 611, 612 (¶ 3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Smith v. State , 986 So.2d 290, 294 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008) ). In applying the plain-error rule, we determine: "(1) whether the trial court deviated from a legal rule; (2) whether the error is plain, clear, or obvious; and (3) whether the error prejudiced the outcome of the trial." Willie , 204 So.3d at 1279 (¶ 29). We will only reverse if the error "resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice." Id.

¶ 13. The Confrontation Clause "only applies to statements that are 'testimonial.' " Corbin v. State , 74 So.3d 333, 338 (¶ 13) (Miss. 2011) (citing Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) ). "[N]on[ ]testimonial hearsay does not trigger the need for confrontation to be admissible." Frazier v. State , 907 So.2d 985, 997 (¶ 39) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).

In the context of police interrogations, ... a statement is testimonial "when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution." Davis [v. Washington ], 547 U.S. [813,] 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266 [165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) ]. A statement is nontestimonial when "made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency." Id.

Matthies v. State , 85 So.3d 872, 874 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). In this context, Deputy Bee's mention of Battle's statement was elicited to show how police conducted their investigation for the weapon; there was nothing testimonial about the statement. See United States v. Cromer , 389 F.3d 662, 676 (6th Cir. 2004) (finding the Confrontation Clause not applicable to an out-of-court statement alluded to by a witness, which merely "served the purpose of explaining how certain events came to pass or why the officers took the actions they did").

¶ 14. Furthermore, the testimony does not constitute plain error because defense counsel had already elicited this information during cross-examination of another witness prior to Deputy Bee's testimony as part of its trial strategy. Deputy Marena Jones was asked on cross-examination how law enforcement was able to determine where to search for the weapon. The State objected to that information as hearsay. Defense counsel argued that it was "[j]ust as a part of the investigation, as a part of the events that happened[.]" Defense counsel also asserted that this information was being elicited to demonstrate that "[s]omebody other than [Chatman] showed them where the gun was or had knowledge of where the gun was." The court overruled the State's objection and allowed the testimony:

Q. Investigator Jones, ... where did you get the information concerning the location to look for the weapon?
A. During the course of the investigation, it was made known of a possible location where the weapon was located.
Q. By whom?
A. The-another co-defendant.
Q. And what's the co-defendant's name?
A. John Battle, Jr.
....
Q. So John Battle, Jr., gave you information on where to look for the gun?
A. Not me.
Q. Well, who did he give it to?
A. Another investigator.

¶ 15. "If a defendant opens the door to [the] line of testimony, ordinarily he may not complain about the prosecutor's decision to accept the benevolent invitation to cross the threshold." Doby v. State , 557 So.2d 533, 539 (Miss. 1990) (citing United States v. Delk , 586 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1978) ). In Campbell v. State , 883 So.2d 115, 120 (¶ 17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), the defendant argued "that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when his trial attorney introduced certain statements made by [his] co-indictee," and that this error was "so fundamental that it generate[d] a miscarriage of justice that rises to the level of plain error." This Court found the issue procedurally barred and without merit, holding: "Since there was a legitimate trial tactic or purpose involved in putting the statements into evidence, there is no ground to find that the waiver of the right of confrontation was invalid." Id. at 120 (¶ 18) ; see also United States v. Lopez-Medina , 596 F.3d 716, 731 (10th Cir. 2010) ("[C]ounsel in a criminal case may waive a client's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by opening the door, 'so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorney's decision and so long as it can be said that the attorney's decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy.' ").

¶ 16. Chatman's counsel unequivocally stated that he wanted to introduce this testimony as part of his trial strategy. He wanted to that show his client did not provide the officers with the location of the gun-Battle did. Therefore, Chatman waived his right under the Confrontation Clause to object to this testimony later in the trial. We find this issue without merit.

II. Whether the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict or, in the alternative, whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

¶ 17. Chatman was convicted of deliberate-design murder, which is defined as the "killing of a human being without the authority of law ... [w]hen done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being[.]" Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (1)(a). Chatman argues there was insufficient evidence to show he deliberately designed to kill Williams. He says he was merely present at the shooting; the only evidence of conspiracy was the fact that the three men were in the same car, and the evidence was "inconclusive" as to whom shot Williams. He submits that "the fact that his DNA was found throughout the vehicle is not inculpatory."

¶ 18. The relevant inquiry in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence "is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Bush v. State , 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. State , 233 So.3d 288 (Miss. 2017). Thus, in reviewing a trial court's denial of a JNOV, "the prosecution is given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence, and all credible evidence consistent with the defendant's guilt must be accepted as true." Howell v. State , 144 So.3d 211, 216 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Price v. State , 892 So.2d 294, 297 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) ).

¶ 19. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find sufficient evidence to support Chatman's murder conviction. Williams told Crosby that the persons who shot him were from Friars Point, and he identified to his aunt that "Little Clyde and them" shot him. The prosecution also established that Chatman had a motive to kill Williams-he was angry Williams was dating Christian. Chatman admitted that he was in a white car that evening, driving around Jonestown, and that he liked Christian, Williams's girlfriend. Christian saw a white car drive by while she was with Williams on her front porch, and she heard the gunshots a few minutes later, after Williams had walked up the road. She also said Chatman had attempted to call her on her cellphone that day, but she did not talk to him. "Deliberate design to kill a person may be formed very quickly, and perhaps only moments before the act of consummating the intent." Anderson v. State , 154 So.3d 42, 50 (¶ 21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Brown v. State , 965 So.2d 1023, 1030 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2007) ). The white Crown Victoria, owned by Chatman's mother, contained GSR, and particles indicative of GSR were found on Chatman's palms. The glove found in the back seat also had Chatman's DNA. The prosecution noted during closing argument that had Chatman been driving the car as he claimed, any GSR would have likely settled on the back of his hands, not his palms. Regarding Chatman's assertion that Williams came up to the car and "attacked" him, this testimony is contradictory to the forensic testimony that Williams was shot in the back and on his right side. As the trial judge commented during sentencing:

[W]hat the defendant testified to was inconsistent with the fact that we knew the deceased was shot in the back. I don't see how [Williams] could be standing and swinging at the driver of a car ... and all of a sudden have a hail of gunfire and get shot in the back. You're going to be facing him if you're swinging at him.

¶ 20. Chatman also contends the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In reviewing the weight of the evidence, "we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice." Bush , 895 So.2d at 844 (¶ 18) (citing Herring v. State , 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997) ). Based on the evidence summarized above, we find that allowing Chatman's conviction to stand would not sanction an unconscionable injustice, as there was overwhelming evidence that Chatman murdered Williams. Chatman's conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence are affirmed.

¶ 21. AFFIRMED.

LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., CARLTON, FAIR, WILSON, GREENLEE, WESTBROOKS AND TINDELL, JJ., CONCUR.

      They were also indicted under the firearm-enhancement statute, Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-37-37 (Rev. 2006), for killing Williams by discharging a firearm while in a car, but this count was later dismissed as to all defendants.

      Since Chatman testified and implicated Cox in his testimony, the trial judge granted Cox's motion for severance during the proceedings.


text:
    Michael Alan TANKERSLEY v. Melita Elizabeth TANKERSLEY
    2150481
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Myron K. BELL v. Hattie Virginia BELL et al.
    2150332
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Glenda BARGER v. Michael BARGER
    2140952
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    GREEN MOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. v. BLUEWATER HOLDINGS LLC
    2130306
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Nancy Holloway WARREN v. Ronald Terrell WARREN; Shelby Warren (Intervenor)
    2150554
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jennifer THOMAS v. Adam THOMAS
    2150533
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Melvin Doyce TINKER, Jr. v. Melvin Scott TINKER
    2150528
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Ronnie GRAEFF v. Mitzi GRAEFF
    2150583
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 5, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.C.N. v. R.E.S.
    2150588
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed (withdrawn 04/07/2017; see opinion at 239 So.3d 1164).


text:
    The ROBINSON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP et al. v. CHARTER LANDING ESTATES, LLC
    2150618
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Patricia Smith (NORVELL) v. Shawn SMITH
    2150622
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Nathaniel J. BRANTLEY v. HSBC BANK, USA
    2150630
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Case reinstated.


text:
    Lauren Butler BRITT v. Paul Randall BRITT
    2150655
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.P. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150676
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017 Reh. denied March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dee PARKS v. Linda TURNER
    2150686
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Harry Brant LANCASTER, Jr. v. Kylia Haskew ROSS
    2150680
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Aubrey Alison BISHOP IV v. Margaret Brooke BISHOP
    2150693
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Raymond LAFORCE v. Candace LAFORCE
    2150692
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.P. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150710
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017 Reh. denied March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.R. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150688
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017 Reh. denied February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donnie HARPER v. Kelly HARPER
    2150712
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David PERRY v. Leigh Davis PERRY
    2150719
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.M. v. CRENSHAW COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150724
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Curtis Wayne EDWARDS v. Samuel Ray HOLMES et al.
    2150720
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Ronald MEEHAN v. Felicia MEEHAN
    2150734
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Appeal - Affirmed Cross-Appeal - Affirmed (withdrawn 07/15/2016; see opinion at ___ So.3d ___).


text:
    R.M. v. CRENSHAW COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150725
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.M. v. CRENSHAW COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150726
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sylvia W. HUGHES v. Lesle NELSON and William W. Danley
    2150740
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Carla LONGMIRE v. CITY OF MOBILE
    2150759
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    Monte THOMAS v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES
    2150786
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Case reinstated January 27, 2017 February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Case reinstated.


text:
    Jere AUSTILL III v. Tyler M. PRESCOTT
    2150783
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017 Reh. denied February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.T.E. v. R.N. and K.N.
    2150751
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Reh. denied.


text:
    David Scott MOORHEAD v. Elizabeth Hairston MOORHEAD
    2150791
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael Lynn ALDRIDGE v. Pamela Dawn ALDRIDGE
    2150794
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lisa Louise WILLIAMS v. Mark Alan WILLIAMS
    2150788
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donna Rae INGRAM v. GKN WESTLAND AEROSPACE, INC.
    2150792
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alex SMITH, Jr. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
    2150804
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150806
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Haleigh Hudson SHADDIX v. William Daniel SHADDIX
    2150796
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Donald LYLES and Cheryl Lyles v. LEGACY COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
    2150797
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 4, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150809
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150807
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150808
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.L. v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150810
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Anthony S. COOK v. Colleen D. STROMBERG
    2150819
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Tyler KEAN v. Christine KEAN
    2150820
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Charles Junior TAYLOR and Larry Douglas Taylor v. Willie Dell TAYLOR
    2150817
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017 Reh. denied February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Bethann SHIRLEY v. Matthew SHIRLEY
    2150818
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    ALABAMA STATE PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT et al. v. Brooke M. WALKER
    2150854
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    David PERRY v. Leigh Davis PERRY
    2150856
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.B. and K.S. v. K.S.B.
    2150850
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.G. v. MOBILE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150823
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Marlene RIDDLE v. Craig RIDDLE
    2150862
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017 Reh. denied March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    James Edward MOORE, Jr. v. STATE EX REL. Robert BROUSSARD
    2150858
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    MIKE'S AUTO d/b/a Mijen Enterprises, Inc. v. Van BROWN III
    2150874
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.F. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150859
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017 Reh. denied March 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Birgit CRANE v. Richard Thomas CRANE
    2150902
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Christopher Duane LIVENGOOD v. Rebekah A. SANDIFER
    2150904
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Barbara WATKINS v. Gary HARPER and Laurie Harper
    2150887
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    E.H. v. L.R. and Madison County Department of Human Resources
    2150875
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Chey Lindsey GARRIGAN v. Jacob Lynn SIMPKINS
    2150908
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Michael W. MCCLURE v. WOODSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
    2150911
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robin BUZBEE v. Aubrey PARSON
    2150906
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    BUILDER SYSTEMS, LLC v. Jerry KLAMER and Lisa Klamer
    2150907
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    ACROSS THE POND (FLORENCE), INC. v. JOHNNY'S HOME RESTORATIONS
    2150926
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    P.T. v. CHEROKEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, R.J., and S.J.
    2150928
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    R.C.M. v. R.C., JR.
    2150929
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.M. v. G.S. and S.S.
    2150920
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 25, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    GRANGER, THAGARD & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. JAMES WOODS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
    2150937
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jack GRANGER v. JAMES WOODS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
    2150938
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    B.S. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150933
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.L. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150932
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jerry NIX v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150951
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Allison LEAK v. William SPROULE
    2150945
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    JAVED AKHTAR PROPERTIES, LLC v. S & A SUPER MARKET, LLC
    2150946
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 26, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    T.C.K. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150943
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 13, 2017 Reh. denied February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Lackey HOPKINS v. Jennifer J. HOPKINS
    2150955
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed (withdrawn 5/26/2017; see opinion at 241 So.3d 676).


text:
    L.F. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150957
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    L.F. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150956
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.C. v. T.G. and L.G.
    2150953
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Robert Chris CAMPBELL v. Kayla Dionne CAMPBELL
    2150970
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.S. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150968
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.R. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150960
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.H. v. HOUSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150959
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Freddie T. MASSEY v. W. Dewayne MULLINS
    2150981
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Jessica Erin BODNER v. Corey Michael BROUSSARD
    2150980
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Frankie Thomas ROGERS v. Ken MOORE et al.
    2150976
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Romulus PETRINA v. Kimberly PETRINA
    2150972
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017 Reh. denied March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Demitrus PAYNE v. VANTAGE MANAGEMENT
    2150990
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Norman Duggan HOLMAN, Sr. v. Sara Walden HOLMAN
    2150987
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Lisa MARSHALL v. Willie Neal WILLIAMS
    2150988
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Stacia CROMARTIE v. The LAW OFFICE OF E. PEYTON FAULK et al.
    2150989
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Daphanie COVINGTON v. James Terry COVINGTON, Jr.
    2150992
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    PENNSYLVANIA LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. CHAPMAN BROTHERS LOGGING CO.
    2150993
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 14, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    John Roger WILSON, Jr. v. Eva Jeanne WILSON
    2150994
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Riley K. EASLEY v. Saudra KNIGHT
    2150991
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    UNIVERSITY CHEVROLET BUICK GMC v. Jessie Louise SPRINGER
    2150998
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    B.C. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2150997
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Angela SCOTT v. Patrick HAND
    2150999
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Alan Keith HAYLES v. Karen Pruett HAYLES
    2151002
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.C. v. JEFFERSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2151007
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Dennis Earl BUSHEY v. Tracy Melissa BUSHEY
    2151014
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.H. v. CULLMAN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2151008
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Milton BARNETT v. Bertha GIBBS
    2151015
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    M.J. v. DALLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160009
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    T.C. v. J.A.
    2160005
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.B. v. WE.B. and Wa.B.
    2160010
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.B. v. WE.B. and Wa.B.
    2160011
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 17, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Sorina Maria Suma CHRISTIAN v. Alan Cameron CHRISTIAN
    2160029
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    P.S. and D.S. v. B.P. and J.P.
    2160036
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    P.S. and D.S. v. B.P. and J.P.
    2160037
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    William Roger KING v. Cathy Ann KING
    2160030
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.S. v. COVINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160047
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Patrick D. TAYS v. REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and Howard Grisham Law Offices
    2160038
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Albert BONHAM, Jr., and Marilyn Bonham, co-administrators ad litem of the estate of Albert Dewayne Bonham, deceased v. STATE EX REL. Walt M. MERRELL III, District Attorney of Covington County
    2160041
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Richard Eugene SNOW v. Cynthia Ann SNOW
    2160039
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    C.S. v. COVINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160048
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    J.P. v. DEKALB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160051
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    D.W. v. D.A.W.
    2160058
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    M.M.G. v. E.J.M.
    2160054
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tammy Lee HOOD v. James Douglas HOOD
    2160083
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    K.C. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160067
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Shelby Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala. R.Juv.P.


text:
    Otis GAMBLE III v. Willie Fred SMITH
    2160068
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 17, 2017 Reh. denied February 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tommi BERNABEI a/k/a Tommi Alexis Bernabei v. Chris BERNABEI
    2160079
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.D. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160093
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    N.D. v. BALDWIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160094
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    A.N.S. v. P.C.N.
    2160084
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Steven MATTHEWS and Tamela Matthews v. Daniel YOUNG
    2160092
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Arith WILLIAMS v. Osbien WILLIAMS
    2160106
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Ulises CHAVEZ v. BBVA COMPASS BANK
    2160096
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Mary Ann CARTER v. Lepolean PETERSON
    2160098
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    W.G. v. A.T.
    2160095
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 20, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    J.I. v. B.B.
    2160107
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Lee EAKINS v. James FERGUSON et al.
    2160125
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Rayshun Donyale WALKER v. PROGRESSIVE REMARKETING d/b/a CarBuyerUSA.com, et al.
    2160109
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rayshun Donyale WALKER v. GEICO CASUALTY CO.
    2160108
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Cameo Paige SPENDLOVE v. Terry Dean SPENDLOVE
    2160126
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    E.M. v. J.C. and Jefferson County Department of Human Resources
    2160145
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct., Bessemer Div., for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28(D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    David Gaston PRICE v. John W. PRICE
    2160133
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 27, 2017 Reh. denied March 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    George Edward KING, Jr. v. JoAnn LEE
    2160144
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Arthur SIMON, Jr. v. Sophia Loren SIMON
    2160152
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Melissa BLOSE v. Arnold Glenn BALENTINE
    2160157
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Tyrone OWENS v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.
    2160149
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Evelyn Bernice SIMPSON v. Otis James SIMPSON
    2160156
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 15, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Rita ROBINSON v. Martha GIBBS
    2160161
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    O. Lee HAMILTON III v. Susan Michelle HAMILTON
    2160158
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Kenneth Eric STEWART v. Edvatte Rena STEWART
    2160175
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 12, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Fred TURNER, by and through Winifred L. McNutt v. Frederica TURNER
    2160159
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 11, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Testamentary Trust of Kate Frierson BOYD v. James RIVERS
    2160210
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Michael BURKHALTER
    (In re Danette D. Burkhalter v. Michael G. Burkhalter)
    2160200
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 3, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    J.D. BENNETT v. Judge Jenifer HOLT and Jackson County Circuit Court
    2160199
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    1 QUICK BAIL BONDS, LLC v. STATE
    2160204
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Henry A. JACKSON v. Oran ALEXANDER
    2160221
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    S.B. v. M.A. and J.A.
    2160215
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.J.J. v. J.D.B.
    2160218
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct. for trial de novo pursuant to Rule 28 (D), Ala.R.Juv.P.


text:
    E.H. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    2160214
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    James RIVERS v. TESTAMENTARY TRUST OF Kate Frierson BOYD
    2160226
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    D.W. v. STATE
    2160227
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE TTR CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al.
    (In re: TTR Construction, LLC, et al. v. Judge Bentley H. Patrick, Jefferson Circuit Court)
    2160230
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Larry Earl RENO
    (In re: Larry Earl Reno v. Judge Marvin W. Wiggins, Bibb County Circuit Court, and State)
    2160222
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 6, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Stefania Villella LEE v. Michael Wade LEE
    2160240
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Stefania Villella LEE v. Michael Wade LEE
    2160241
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 7, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Stephen WOODS
    (In re Stephen Woods v. Tonya Woods)
    2160235
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE KALIM A.R. MUHAMMAD & TRUST; the class of the Muhammed family; the sovereign citizens of Alabama; AT & T customers similarly situated; K.A.R.M. class representative; and the Alabama state sovereign (In re: Ex parte Kalim A.R. Muhammad & Trust; the class of the Muhammed family; the sovereign citizens of Alabama; AT & T customers similarly situated; K.A.R.M. class representative; and the Alabama state sovereign v. AT & T, Inc., et al.)
    2160236
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 19, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    James Amar WOODS v. Ericka Holt STEPHENS
    2160244
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 31, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    OTBOC and Gloria Walker v. BRYANT BANK and Randy Rogers Properties, LLC
    2160249
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE C.H. and D.H.
    (In re: Department of Human Resources v. C.H. and D.H.)
    2160243
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Steven Mark HAYDEN v. William B. CASHION et al.
    2160242
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    January 18, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Alfred P. MONTGOMERY v. ALABAMA STATE BAR and John Brunson
    2160261
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Madelyn SMILEY v. Carlos SMILEY
    2160268
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 22, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Anthony S. PAPINEAU v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES et al.
    2160288
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Affirmed.


text:
    Kenneth Winston DIAL v. Warden Dwayne ESTES and State
    2160284
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 1, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Ct. of Crim. App. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE Whitney Phillips BROOKS
    (In re: Lloyd Michael Brooks v. Whitney Phillips Brooks)
    2160312
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 10, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    EX PARTE Alice E. CERF
    (In re: Alice E. Cerf v. James A. Cerf)
    2160321
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. granted.


text:
    Ex parte State Department of Transportation
    (In re: STATE v. Lewis D. SHIRLEY, Linda Shirley, and John A. Somerville IV)
    2160316
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    A.C. and M.C. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and D.P.
    2160308
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    A.C. and M.C. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and D.P.
    2160323
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE CERTIFIED AUTO SALES OF CHILTON COUNTY, LLC, and John Carpenter
    (In re: Frances Black v. John Carpenter and Certified Auto Sales of Chilton County, LLC )
    2160339
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    A.C. and M.C. v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES and D.P.
    2160322
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 24, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Frances HOLT
    (In re: Frances Holt v. Michael C. Niemeyer, Staci G. Niemeyer, Carlton Niemeyer, Judy Niemeyer, Ashurst & Niemeyer, LLC, and Murray Thames Contractor, Inc. )
    2160338
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 23, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Terry Joe Wayne SMITH v. Krystal Johnson SMITH
    2160355
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 16, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE C.H. and D.H.
    (In re: Department of Human Resources v. C.H. and D.H.)
    2160366
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 2, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    Ex parte Tracy Holt
    (In re: STATE v. Tracy HOLT )
    2160348
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE Randall OTEY
    (In re: Randall Otey v. Daniel Lewis, probation officer)
    2160347
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    February 28, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    Ex parte Montgomery County Department of Human Resources
    (In re: MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. In the matter of J.B., a minor child)
    2160400
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 21, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE K.W.B.
    (In re: K.W.B. v. B.O.B.)
    2160388
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 13, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. denied.


text:
    In the MATTER OF ANONYMOUS, a minor
    2160382
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    Edward FEARS v. AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE CO., as subrogee of Mary McCormick
    2160386
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.


text:
    EX PARTE Edward FEARS
    (In re: Auto Owners Insurance Company et al. v. Edward Fears)
    2160387
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 8, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.


text:
    Jefferson S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections v. Jackie B. GRAHAM, in her official capacity as Director of the Alabama State Personnel Department, et al.
    2160482
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 30, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    James A. YANCE, Jr. v. Paige McCrory YANCE
    2160471
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 29, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Dismissed.


text:
    EX PARTE Aaron Lamont JOHNSON
    (In re: Aaron Lamont Johnson v. Anne-Marie Adams, A.C. Roper, and William Bell)
    2160466
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 27, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


text:
    EX PARTE MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    (In re: Montgomery County Department of Human Resources v. In the matter of D.F., Jr., a minor child)
    2160401
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    March 17, 2017
    DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
   Mand. pet. dismissed.