I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 1 8 4 2 - S CT TYR ONE LEW

I S , S HERI FF HI NDS COUNTY, M I SS I SS I PPI
v. HI NDS COUNTY CI

RCUI T COURT
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 30/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. W I LL I AM A. GOW AN, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : D A N A P . S I MS AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : ANNA MARI E L I VI NGS T ON NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER DI S P OS I T I ON: VAC AT E D I N P AR T AND R E NDE RE D - 02/ 19/ 2015 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he i ns t antappea l ar i s es outof a di s put e b et w een S heri ff T yr one Lew i s of H i nds C ou nty and the j ud ges’ cham bers of the H i nd s C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtov er the rol e of bai l i ff s. L ew is attem p ted to m ak e h ir ing , fi ri n g , an d co m p en sati o n ch an g es a ffecti n g b ail if fs. In
r es pons e, the ci r cui tc our ti s s ued an O r derand O pi ni on i n 2012 uphol di ng a pr evi ous O r der from 1 9 9 6
. T h e 1 9 9 6 O rde r st ated that, in se v era l resp ec ts, fu rth er d etail ed b elow , b ail if fs f el l underthe author i ty of the j udi ci ary r at her t han the s her i f f
. L ew i s f

i l ed a M ot i on f

or R e lief, a n d th e c irc u it co u rt su b se q u e n tly iss u e d a n o th e r o rd e r, g ra n tin g th e p o w e r to
c o m p e n sa te b a ilif

fs to th e sh e riff o n ly if h e fo llo w s th e ter m s o f th e 1 9 9 6 O rd e r. L e w is

### 2

a p p e a led . W e h o ld th a t th e 1 9 9 6 O rd e r a n d th e 2 0 1 2 O rd e r a n d O p in io n a re v o id in p a rt to th e e x te n t th e y d ir e c tly v io la te th e C o n s titu tio n a n d s ta tu to ry la w .

P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY AND B ACKGROUND ¶2
. I n 19 96 , the Hi nd s Coun ty Ci r c ui tCourti s s ue d a n O r de rt o E s t abl i s h R ul es and R egul at i ons f

orC our tB ai l i f

f s . T he st at ed purpos e of the 1996 O r der , s i gned by al l f ourthens ervi ng H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our tj udges , w as t o mai nt ai n or derand ef f i ci ency w i thi n the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tCourt
. T he O r deraddr es s ed the hour s , uni f orm , di s ci pl i ne, and dut i es of bai l i f f s . T he O r derst at ed: “C our tB ai l i f f s s hal l notbe as s i gned dut i es w hi ch ar e nonj udi ci al exce ptupon perm i s s i on of the J udge .
. . B ai l i f

f s do notf unct i on as par tof a ny l aw enf or cementagenc y. ” The O r deral s o s t at ed: B ai l i f f s m ay be a s s i gned by the S her i f f t o s peci al dut i es s uch as f ai rduty, f ootbal l game duty a nd otherdut i es of s i m i l arna tur e. Bai l i f

f s m ay be ut i l i zed by the H i nd s C ou nty Sh eri ff sho uld they be n eeded forC ou nty em ergencies
. S al ari es f

or C ou rtB ai l i ff

s shal l be setby the S heri ff on an eq uit able basi s. ¶3. Sher i f

f T yr one Lew i s t ook of f i ce i n January 20 12
. L ew i s then s ubm i t t ed Speci al O r der s bef

or e the ci r cui tcour tper t ai ni ng t o t he dem ot i on, t r ans f er , and r educt i on of

s al ar i es of bai l i f f s . I n re s pons e, t he ci r cui tcour ti s s ued an O r derand O pi ni on on F ebruary 12, 2012. T h e 2 0 1 2 O rde r an d O p inion stat ed that the 1 9 9 6 O rde r i s b ind ing , an d b ail if fs are c o u rt per s onnel
. T he O r derand O pi ni on concl uded thatL ew i s ’ s Speci al O r der s vi ol at e the 1996 O rde r and are, there fore , vo id. F u rth er, the O rde r and O p inion stat ed th at “an y p a rty
a tte m p tin g to v io la te th is o rd e r s h a ll im m e d ia te ly S H O W C A U S E . . . .” ¶4
. L e w is a p p ea led the 2 0 1 2 O rde r an d O p inion to the S u p rem e C o u rt , an d the c irc u it
cou rtm ov ed to di sm i ss the ap peal. W e i ssued an O rdergrant i ng the m o t i on t o d i sm i ss

### 3

w ith o u t pr ej udi ce. Su bsequ entl y, on A pr i l 23, 2012, L ew i s f i l ed a M ot i on f

orR el i ef f r om O rd e r an d O p in io n in th e circ u it c o u rt. T h e circ u it c o u rt d id n o t re sp o n d ; th u s, L e w is a g a in appea l ed t o the Supr eme C our t . O n M ay 1 1, 2012, w e i s s ued a mandat e di s m i s s i ng the
a p p e a l w ith o u t pr ej ud i ce an d com pel l i ng the ci r cui tcourtt o r es pond. O n Sept ember30, 2013, the ci r cui tcourtf i nal l y ent er ed an O r der
. T he O r derf ound thatthe 2012 O r derand O pi ni on enf

or ced the 1996 O r dert hatL ew i s fa i l ed t o prope r l y appeal ; t hus , i ts t ands
. T he O r derf ur therf ound that“the C our thas no author i ty t o contr ol s al ar i es of bai l i f f s s o l ong as the t erm s of

the 1996 O r derar e met ; i
. e. [ T he Sher i f f ] s hal l
. . . s et[ bai l i f

f s ’ ] s al ar i es on an
e q u ita b le b a s is c o n g ru e n t w ith o th e r d e p u tie s .” ¶ 5 . L e wi s t h e n ap p e a l e d t o th e S u p r e m e C o u r tu n d e ra W r i to f M a n d a mu s , a n d we d ism issed h is ap p ea l as m o o t. S u b seq u en tl y , L ew is pro p e rly ap p ea led th e c ir cu itco u rt ’s S e p tem b e r 3 0 O rd e r to th e S u p re m e C o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶6. T he C our t“w i l l n ot enga ge i n st atutory i nterpret at i on if a st atute i s pl ai n and unambi guous . ” Mis s is s i ppiMet ho dis t Hos p. & R ehab. Ctr. , I

nc. v. Mis s is s i

ppiD i v. of Me dica id , 21 So. 3d 600, 607 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng In re G u a rdia n sh ip o f D u c k e tt , 991 So. 2 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 8 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 )). S ta tu to ry in terp re tatio n is a p p ro p ria te w h e n a sta tu te is
a m b ig u o u s o r s ile n t o n a s p e c if ic is s u e . Mis s is s i

pp iMe thodis t

Hos p. & Rehab . Cente r

, I nc . 21 So. 3d at607 ( ci t i ng In re D u c k e tt , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d at 1 1 8 1 -8 2 ). If sta tu to ry in terp re tatio n is appr opr i at e, the C our thas w r i t t en: St atut ory i nt erpr et at i on i s a mat t erof l aw w hi ch w e revi ew i n i t s ent i r ety. W al lace v. T

ow n of R alei gh , 8 1 5 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). W e pr es um e a st atut e i s cons t i tut i onal unl es s the cha l l engi ng party i s abl e t o pr ove

### 4

u n c o n s titu tio n a lity b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id; s ee al s o Mis s . P ow erCo. v. G oudy , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). A ll d o u b t m u s t b e re so lv e d in fa v o r o f th e v a lid ity o f a s ta tu te . L o den v. Miss. P u b . S erv . Co m m ’n , 279 So. 2 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 3 ). U ni v e rs it y of Mi s s is s i pp iMe d. Ctr. v. Robinson , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 -40 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). W h e th e r th e sta tu te is a m b ig u o u s o r u n a m b ig u o u s, th e “ u lti m a te g o a l o f [th e ] C o u rt in i nt erpr et i ng a s t atut e i s t o di s cern and gi ve ef f ectto the l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” A l lr ed v. Y arbor ough , 843 So. 2d 727, 729 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Cit y of N atchezv. Sulli van , 612 So. 2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ))
. S TATEM ENT OF THE I S S UES ¶7. O n app eal , L ew i s bri ng s three i ssues, and the ci rcui t cou rt bri ng s tw o si m i l ar i ssues. W e h a v e c o n s o lid a te d th e c o lle c tiv e fi v e is s u e s in to th re e s p e c if ic is s u e s . I. W h eth er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 9 -25 -19 a u th o rizes a sh er if f to ap p oint, assi gn , an d com p en sate b ail i ff s w i thou t the ex p ress p er m issi o n o f the circ u itco u rt. II. W h eth er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 19 -25 -21 au th o rizes a sh er if f to enf orce t he t rai ni ng requi rem ent s of Sect i ons 19- 25- 21 and 45-6- 11 for l aw en forcem en t of fi cers serving a s ba i l i ff s. I I I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t ’ s 1 99 6 and 2012 orders vi ol at e d t he doc t r i ne of

s e par at i on o f

power s unde r A r t i c l e 1, Se c t i ons 1 and 2 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i t ut i on.

DI S CU S S I ON I. W h eth er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 9 -25 -19 a u th o rizes a sh er if f to ap p oint, assi gn , an d com p en sate bail i ff s w i thou t t h e ex p ress p er m issi o n o f the circ u itco u rt. ¶8
. L e w is argu es tha t S ec ti o n 19 -25 -19 ex p res sly a u th o riz e s th e sh e riff to a p p o in t,
c o m p e n s a te , a n d a s s ig n d e p u tie s to a s s is t in th e d u tie s o f h is o ff ic e . See M is s . C o d e A n n . §

### Th e Leg islature h as carvedout an ex ceptio n an d d efinedthe p ay fo r “ridin g b ailiffs” 1 

### in S ection19 -25 -31
. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 19-25- 31 (Re v. 2012)
. Ri ding bai li ff s are hire d un der th e jud ge’s d iscretionbya court ord er andall owthe sh eriff add ition al bailiffs. Id. Riding bai li ff

s have a st at utorily fix ed compe nsati on at fi fty-f ivedoll ar s a

day, and they differ from dep uties or bailiffs of the sh eriff. See id
. We did not find any proof in there cord 5 1 9
- 2 5
- 1 9 ( Re v . 2 0 1 2 )
. L e wi s a l s o a r g u e s t h a tt h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f S e c t i o n 1 9
- 2 5
- 1 9 a l l o ws the s her i f

f t o re m ove a de puty atpl eas ur e butr equi r es the courtt o gi ve not i ce a nd hol d a h e a ri n g to s h o w c a u s e . See id .; I n re B is hop , 2 1 1 M iss. 5 1 8 , 5 2 0 (19 5 1 ). ¶9. T he ci r cui t court empl oys cas e l aw f r om out s i de M i s s i s s i ppi t o i nt erpr et Sect i on 19- 2 5 -1 9
. See M i s s . C ode A nn . § 19- 25- 19; Fr a z ie rv. Me a do ws , 454 S. E . 2d 65 ( W . V a. 1994)
. T he ci r cui tcourtar gues cas e l aw f r om anothers t at e s houl d appl y beca us e M i s s i s s i ppi lack s ca se law o n the issu e. F o ll o w ing the re aso n ing o f Fr az ier , the ci r cui tcourtar gues that slig h t d e v ia tio n fro m th e p lain m e a n in g o f th e sta tu tes is n e c e ss a ry , an d th e C o u rt sh o u ld h o ld th a t th e s h e ri ff

m u s t g a in p e rm is s io n to a p p o in t, a s s ig n , a n d c o m p e n s a te b a ilif fs
. See Fr az ier , 454 S. E . 2d at71. ¶ 1 0
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -1 9 sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: E v e ry sh e ri ff

s h a ll h a v e p o w e r to a p p o in t o n e o r m o re d e p u ties to a ss ist h im i n carryi ng ou tthe du t i es o f h is o ffic e , ev e ry su c h a p p o in tm e n t to b e in w r i t i ng, t o r emove t hem atpl eas ur e, and t o f i x compensa t i on, s ubj ectt o the budgetf

orthe s her i f

f’ s of f i ce appr oved by t he cou nty boar d of s upervi s or s . . . . A l l s her i f f s s hal l be l i abl e f

orthe ac t s of

thei rdeput i es , and f

or m o n e y c o llec ted b y th e m . T h e c irc u it c o u rt, a fte r a n o tice a n d a h e a rin g , sh a ll have pow ert o r emove suc h deput i es and al s o bai l i f f s , upon a s how i ng thatthe publ i c i nt er es tw i l l be s erved ther eby. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 19 ( emphasi s added)
. T he pl ai n l anguage of S ect i on 19- 25- 19 empow er s a s her i f

f t o com pens at e and r emove deput i es atpl eas ur e and makes no di s t i nct i on betw een d epu t i es and b ai l i ff s. See i d. T he onl y qual i f i eron the she r i f

f’ s pow eri s thatthe 1

### that t

he bail if fs at is sueare riding bai li ff

s; thus , Se ction 19- 25-31 does no t ap plyto the instant facts. 6 d e p u tie s m u s t b e a s s is tin g th e s h e ri ff in c a rr y in g o u t h is d u tie s . Se e id
. T h u s, to fu lly
u n d e rsta n d S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -1 9 , w e lo o k to o th e r sta tu tes d e fin in g th e d u ties o f th e sh e riff to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e d u tie s o f t h e s h e ri ff e x te n d to th e c o u rt s . ¶ 1 1
. S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 p e rta in s to th e d u ties o f th e sh e riff a n d sta tes th a t “[t]h e sh e riff sh a ll be the exe cuti ve off

i cerof the ci r cui tand cha ncery court. . . and he s hal l att end al l the
s es s i ons ther eof

w i th a s uf

f i ci entnum berof

deput i es orbai l i f

f s . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 35 (R ev . 2 0 1 2 ). T he sheri ff has the d uty t o en sure every ses si on of the cir cuitcou rthas a d e p u ty o r b a ilif

f a tte n d in g . T h u s , th e s h e ri ff’s d u tie s e x te n d to th e c o u rt . ¶ 1 2
. T h e C o u rt h a s s ta te d , w h e re th e la n g u a g e in a s ta tu te is p la in a n d u n a m b ig u o u s , “ [i]t is n o t w ith in th e p ro v in c e o f th is [C ]o u rtto a d d to th e la w a s th e L e g is la tu re h a s w ri tte n it.” First N a t’l B a n kof Mem

p h is v. S tate T

ax Co m m ’n , 49 So. 2d 410, 412 ( 1950) ( quot i ng City of H az lehurs t

v. Mayes , 5 1 S o . 8 9 0 , 8 9 1 (1 9 1 0 )); s ee al s o Conw ay v. Mis s is s i

ppiState B d.
o f He a lth , 17 3 S o. 2d 41 2, 4 1 5 (1 9 6 5 ). S ect i on 19 -25-19 i s pl ai n an d u nam biguou s. T h e re fo re , w e w ill n o t d e v iate fr o m th e p lain la n g u a g e o f S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -1 9 , a n d th e c irc u it
court ’ s ar gum entthata ca s e f r om anotherst at e shoul d be appl i ed t o i nt erpr etSect i on 19- 25- 1 9 is u n fo u n d e d
. ¶ 1 3
. L e g is la tiv e in te n t is c o n s id e re d e v e n w h e n th e s ta tu te is u n a m b ig u o u s . See A l lr ed v. Y arbor ough , 843 So. 2d 727, 729 ( M i s s . 2003)
. “[ L ] egi s l at i ve i nt entm us tbe det erm i ned f r om t he t ot al l anguage of the actand notfr om one se ct i on ther eof cons i der ed apa r tf

r om the
r emai nder
. ” L ee v. A lexander , 607 So. 2d 30, 36 ( M i s s . 1992) ( quot i ng P earl R i verV al ley

### 7

W a te rS u p p ly D ist. et a l. v. H

in d s Cn ty., e t a l. , 445 So
. 2d 13 30 ( M i ss. 19 84 ))
. T he C o u rt al s o has s t at ed: N o p ri ncipl e i s m ore f

i rm l y est abli shed, orres t s on m ore secure f ou nd at i on s, than the rule w hich declar es w hen a l aw i s plai n and unam biguous , w hether i tbe e xp r e s s e d i n g e ne r a l orl i mi t e d t e rms, tha tt he L egis l at ur e s hal lbe deem ed to have i nt ended t o m ean w hatthey have pl ai nl y expr es s ed, and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , n o r o o m i s l e f tf o rc o n s tru c t i o n i n th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u c h a l a w. Con w ay , 173 So. 2d at415 ( ci t i ng W il s on v. Y az oo & M

. V . R . Co. , 6 S o. 2d 31 3 (19 4 2 )) ( emphasi s added)
. T i t l e 19, S ect i on 25 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode def i nes t he r ol e and dut i es of the s her i f

f , and w e hol d i t s l angu age t o be pl ai n and unambi guous . T her ef or e, under Conw ay , th e L e g is la tu re is d e e m e d to h a v e in te n d e d w h a t is p la in ly e x p re s s e d
. ¶14. T he C our t i s bound by the pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 19- 25- 19. W e hol d that , under S ect i on 19 -25-19, the sheri ff has the authori ty t o com pen sat e, appo i nt, and rem ov e bail i ff s,
as bai l i f f s ar e deput i es of

the s her i f

f
. T he ci r cui tcourtm ay r emove a bai l i f f af t era hea r i ng
a n d a sh o w in g th a t re m o v a l w ill se rv e th e p u b lic in ter e st. II. W h eth er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 9 -25 -21 a u th o rizes a sh er if f to enf orce t he t rai ni ng requi rem ent s of Sect i ons 19- 25- 21 and 45-6- 11 for l aw en forcem en t of fi cers serving a s ba i l i ff s. ¶1 5 . L ew is reli es o n S ec ti o n 19 -25 -19 t o argu e tha t b ail if fs are l aw en forc em en t offi ce rs beca us e they f

al l underthe authori ty of the s her i f

f ; ther ef or e, bai l i f

f s m us ts at i s f

y the
re q u ir e d c o u rs e c u r ri c u lu m a n d q u a lif ic a tio n s u n d e r S e c tio n s 1 9 -2 5 -2 1 a n d 4 5 -6 -1 1
. See M i ss. C od e A nn . §§ 19 -25-19; 19 -25-21 (R ev. 20 12 ); 45 -6- 11 (Sup p. 20 14 ). L ew i s al so arg u es th a t ba il if

fs ha v e law en forc em en t du ti es b ec au se th ey are em p loy ed b y the s h eriff , sw orn i n, and vest ed w i th the aut ho ri ty to bear arm s and m ake arres t s.

### 8

¶ 1 6
. T h e c irc u it c o u rt a rg u e s th a t b a ili ffs a re n o t law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs b e c a u se th e ir p rim a ry d u ties are n o t th e p re v e n tio n an d d e tec tio n o f cr im e o r ap p re h e n sio n o f c ri m in a ls
u n d e r S e c tio n 4 5 -6 -3
. See M i s s . Code § 4 5- 6- 3 ( Rev. 20 11 ) ( de f i ni ng the du t i e s of

a l aw enforcem ent of

fi cer)
. T h e ci rcui tcou rt , theref ore, con cl ud es that the requ i red cou rs e
c u rr ic u lu m u n d e r S e c tio n s 1 9 -2 5 -2 1 a n d 4 5 -6 -1 1 d o e s n o t a p p ly to b a ilif fs
. See M i s s . C ode A n n . § § 1 9 -2 5 -2 1 ; 4 5 -6 -1 1
. ¶17. “I ti s a w el l
- s ett l ed rul e of s t atut ory cons truct i on thatw hen tw o s t atut es pert ai n t o the
sam e s ubj ect , they mustbe r ead t ogetheri n l i ghtof l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” Tuni c a Cnt y. v. H a m p to n Co . Nat ’l

Su r. , LLC , 27 So. 3d 1128, 1133 (M i s s . 2009)
. Sect i on 19- 25- 21 s t at es th e re q u ire d c o u rse c u rric u lu m fo r d e p u ties w h o h a v e law e n fo rc e m e n t dut i es . M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 9 -25 -21
. S ec ti o n 4 5 -6-1 1 states th e q u ali fi ca ti o n s a n d c erti fi ca ti o n s re q u ir ed fo r a law e n fo rc e m e n t of

f i cer– eith er p art-t im e o r fu ll -t im e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 5 -6-1 1 (c), (d). T he i s s ue i s tw o- f

ol d; f i r s tw e det erm i ne w hetherthe s her i f f a nd hi s deput i es orbai l i f f s have la w e n fo rc e m e n t dut i es , and s econd w e det erm i ne w hetherthe s her i f f and hi s deput i es or b a ili ffs a re th e re fo re law e n fo rc e m e n t off i cers . ¶18. T i t l e 19 , S ect i on 25 do es not defi ne w hatc ons t i tut es l aw enforcem ent du t i es. H ow ever , the Legi s l atur e has def i ned a l aw enf

or cementof

f i cer as “any pe r s on appoi nt ed
or em ployed .
. . w ho i s du l y sw orn and ve st ed w i th authori ty t o bear arm s and m ake arres t s, and w hos e pr i m ary r es pons i bi l i ty i s the pr event i on a nd de t ect i on of cr i m e, the appr ehens i on of cr i m i nals and the enforcem ent of the cri m i nal and traf fi c l aw s of this s t at e . . . . ” M is s. C o d e A n n . § 4 5 -6 -3 (c ), ( d ) ( R e v . 2 0 1 1 ).

### 9

¶ 1 9
. T w o sta tu te s w ith in T itle 1 9 , C h a p te r 2 5 d e fin e th e d u ties o f th e sh e riff a n d h is d e p u ties o r b a ili ffs . S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 d e fin e s th e d u ties o f th e sh e riff c o n c e rn in g c o u rts: T he s her i f

f s hal l be the exe cut i ve of f i cerof the ci r cui tand chance ry courtof hi s county, and he s hal l att end al l t he se s s i ons t her eof w i th a suf

f i ci entnum ber o f d e p u ties o r b a ili ffs . H e sh a ll ex e c u te a ll o rd e rs a n d d e c re e s o f sa id c o u rts di r ect ed t o hi m t o be e xecut ed. H e s hal l t ake i nt o hi s cus t ody, and s af el y keep, i n the j ai l of hi s coun ty, al l pers on s com m i t t ed b y o rderof ei ther of s ai d co urt s, orby any pr oces s i s s ui ng ther ef r om , orl aw f

ul l y r equi r ed t o be held f or a p p e a r a n c e b e f

o r e e i th e ro f

th e m. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ). S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 c o n fe rs u p o n th e sh e riff th e d u ty
o f k e e p in g th e p e o p le c o n v ic te d in c u s to d y a n d k e e p in g th e c o u rt h o u s e s a fe
. Se e id
. F u rth er, S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -6 9 sta tes : T he s her i f

f s hal l have char ge of

the c o u rth o u se a n d

ja il of hi s county, of

the pr emi s es bel ongi ng t her et o, and of the pr i s oner s i n s ai d j ai l
. H e s hal l pr es erve the said prem ises and pr i s oner s f r om m ob vi ol ence , f

r om any i nj ur i es or att acks by mobs orotherw i s e, a nd f r om tr es pas s es a nd i ntruder s . H e s hal l keep the co urtho use , j ai l , an d pr emi s es bel ongi ng ther et o, i n a cl ean a nd co m fortab le co n d it ion , an d itsh all b e h is d u ty t o pro sec u te al l p erso n s w h o are g u ilty o f i n

ju ri n g o r d e fa c in g s a m e . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19-25- 69 (Rev. 2012) ( emphasi s added)
. I n otherw or ds , i n Sect i on 19- 2 5 -6 9 , th e L e g is la tu re h a s g iv e n th e sh e ri ff th e d u tie s o f p ro te c tin g th e c o u rt h o u s e . See i d. G iv e n th e u n d e n iab le in ten t th a t th e sh e riff’s d u ties in c lu d e m a in tain in g th e g e n e ra l sa fe ty
o f th e c o u r th o u s e a n d s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o t e c t i n g i tf

r o m v i o l e n c e , a t t a c k s , a n d i n j u r i e s , we concl ude the she r i f

f and hi s deput i es or bai l i f f s engage i n l aw enf

or cementdut i es pert ai ni ng to th e c o u rt . ¶ 2 0
. T h e re m a in in g q u e stio n is w h e th e r a b a ili ff h a v in g la w e n fo rc e m e n t du t i es i s al s o a law e n fo rc e m e n t of

f i cer , an d w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e o r sh e is. S e c tio n 4 5 -6 -3 (c ) sta tes th a t a l aw enf or cementof

f i cerm us tbe “any person appoi nt ed orempl oyed f ul lt i m e [ s i c] by the

### 10

st at e or any po l i t i cal subd vis i on thereof, or by the st at e m i l i t ary dep artm ent . . . . ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 45- 6- 3( c) ( em ph asi s added)
. Sect i on 45- 6- 3( d) s t at es thata “ par t- t i m e l aw
en f or c e mentof

f i c e r ” s ha l l mea n a ny pe r s on a pp oi nt e d o re mpl oy e d i n a pa r t - t i me, r e s e rve
orauxi l i ary capa ci ty by the s t at e ora ny pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s on ther eof
. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 45-6- 3( d) (e m phas i s added)
. U nderboth s ubs ect i ons ( c) and ( d) , a l aw enf or cementof

f i cer – either part -t i m e or ful l -t i m e – m ustal so be ves t ed w i th l aw enf or cementdut i es i ncl udi ng the author i ty t o beararm s and make arr es t s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 45- 6- 3. B oth part - t i m e and f ul l
- t i m e l aw e nf

or cementof

f i cer s a r e s ubj ectt o the tr ai ni ng r equi r ement s and ce r t i f i cat i on
re q u ire m e n ts o u tl ined in S e c tio n 4 5 -6 -1 1 ; h o w e v e r, train in g m a y d iffe r slig h tly b e tw e e n fu lltim e a n d p a rt-tim e o ffic e rs. T h e re fo re , b a ili ffs a re e ith e r la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs o r p a rtt i m e l aw enforcem ent of fi cers becau se they hav e l aw enforcem ent dut i es. ¶21. W e hol d thatba i l i f f s ha vi ng l aw e nf

or cementdut i es unde rSec t i ons 19- 25- 35 and 19- 2 5 -69 are subject to th e tr ainin g requ ir em en ts o f Se cti o n 1 9 -25 -11
. W e a lso h o ld tha t baili ffs havi ng l aw enfor cem entdut i es and ar e ei therl aw enf or cementof

f i cer s orpart - t i m e l aw
e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs a n d , th e re fo re , a re s u b jec t to th e c e rtifica tio n re q u ire m e n ts s e t fo rth in S e c tio n 4 5 -6 -1 1
. I I I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c our t ’ s 1996 and 2012 orde r s vi ol at e d t he doc t r i ne of

s e par at i on of

power s unde r A r t i c l e 1, Se c t i ons 1 a nd 2 o f th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e S ta te o f M iss iss ip p i.T he Legi s l atur e pr evi ous l y has def i ned the dut i es of di f

f er entbr anche s of

the 2 g o v e rn m e n t. See Barbo ur , 974 So. 2d at240 ( ¶ 14) ( “M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed Sect i on 7- 1- 5 pr ovi des the G overnor ’ s dut i es i ncl ude s eei ng thatthe l aw s ar e f ai thf ul l y exec ut ed and m aki ng appoi ntm ent s and f i l l i ng va canc i es a s pr es cr i bed by l aw . ”) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 7 -1 -5 ( c ) a n d (f

) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ))
. 

### 11 ¶22. T he s her i f

f i s a m ember of the exec ut i ve br anch of governm ent . M i s s . C ons t . art . 5, 2 § 1 3 8 ; M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 (“T h e sh e riff sh a ll b e the ex e c u tiv e o ffic e r o f th e c irc u it
a n d c h a n c e ry c o u rt o f h is c o u n ty .”); Tun ic a Cnt y. v . H a m p to n Co . Nat ’l

Su r. , LLC , 27 So. 3d 1128, 1131 ( M i s s . 2009) ( “Thi s C our thas l ong r ecogni zed thatthe s her i f f i s the ‘ chi ef

l aw
exec ut i ve of

f i cerof hi s county. ’ ”) ( ci t i ng S im m o n s v . Sta te , 1 4 1 S o . 2 8 8 (19 3 2 )). ¶23. A r t i cl e 1, S ect i on 1 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on di vi des the governm enti nt o thr ee b ra n c h e s . See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 1 , § 1 . A rticle 1 , S e c tio n 2 o f th e C o n stitu tio n sta tes : N o p ers on or col l ect i on of pers on s, being on e or bel on ging to o n e of these departm ent s , s hal l exer ci s e any pow erpr op erl y bel ongi ng t o ei therof the o thers. T h e a cc ep tanc e o f an o ffi ce in eith er o f sa id d ep artm en ts sh all , o f i tsel f, and atonce, vaca t e any a nd al l of f i ces he l d by the per s on s o acc ept i ng i n ei ther of the o ther dep artm ents . M iss. C o n st. art . 1, § 2. T h e C o u rtha s st ated , “ [ N ] o G o v ern o r, or fo r th a t m a tter, any governm entalof

f i ci al , can e xer ci s e pow erbeyond thei rcons t i tut i onal author i ty. ” Barbo ur
v. State ex r el

. Hood , 9 7 4 S o . 2 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o For di ce
v. B r yan , 651 So. 2d 998, 1003 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng State ex r el . Sego v. K

irkpatr ick , 86 N . M . 3 5 9 , 5 2 4 P . 2 d 9 7 5 (19 7 4 )). ¶2 4. L ew i s ar gues t hatthe 1 99 6 O r de ra nd the 2 01 2 O r de ra nd Opi ni on i s s ued by t he
c irc u it co u rt o v e rste p th e ju d icia ry ’s p o w e r to in terp re t sta tu tes ; w ith th e o rd e rs, th e c irc u it
courtexer ci s es “rul emaki ng pow er” becau se the or der s i gnor e the dut i es of the s her i f

f as

### 12

def i ned by the Legi s l atur e. T he ci r cui tcour tre s ponds w i th t w o sepa r at e ar gum ent s . W i thout ci t i ng any s peci f

i c s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , the ci r cui tc our ta r gues thatthe t i m e t o appeal the 1 9 9 6 h as p asse d ; th ere fore , itis f inal. Italso arg u es tha t, be ca u se th e c o u rtca n h av e a b ail if f
rem o v ed b y sh o w ing d u e c au se u n d er S ec ti o n 1 9 -25 -19 , jud ici al i n v o lvem en t w ith the s h eriff d o e s n o t v io la te th e c o n s titu tio n . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -1 9 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ). ¶25. Sher i f

f s ar e m ember s of

the exec ut i ve br anch; ther ef or e, a l though ba i l i f

f s w ork i n a
courtr oom , they ar e m ember s of the exe cut i ve br anch. T he Legi s l atur e has def i ned the dut i es of s her i f f s conce rni ng court s , and w e f ur therhol d thatthe 1996 O r derand 2012 O r derand Op i n i o n a r e v o i d t o th e e x t e n tth a tth e y c o n tr a d i c ts t a tu t o ry l a w. F o rth e s a k e o f c l a r i ty , we det erm i ne the cons t i tut i onal i ty of the 1996 O r derby s ect i on a nd the 2012 O r derand O pi ni on
a s a w h o le. G iv e n th a t o u r h o ld in g re sts in th e c o n stitu tio n a lity o f th e o rd e rs, th e c irc u it
c o u rt ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e 1 9 9 6 O rd e r w a s n o t tim e ly a p p e a le d fa ils
. Se e e .g . Sier r a Club v. Mis s is s i ppiE nvtl

. Q ualit y Perm it B d. , 943 So. 2d 6 73, 678 ( M i s s . 2006) ( hol di ng that admi ni s tr at i ve or der s may be r evi ew ed bas ed on a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtof t he com pl ai ni ng p a rt y ). ¶26. Sect i on one s t at es the hour s of a bai l i f f’ s w orkday. W e hol d that i t i s not w i thi n the pr ovi nce of

the courtt o det erm i ne the hour s of a bai l i f f’ s w orkday. Sect i on 19- 25- 35 s t at es that the sheri ff

m ustatt end al l s essi on s of the cou rt . S ee M i ss. C od e A nn . § 1 9-25-35
. T hu s, the s h eriff

h as c o n tr o l ov er the h o u rs of h is de p u ti es, an d h e m u st en su re the y att en d all co u rt
s e s s io n s .

### 13

¶2 7. Sect i on t w o de f

i ne s the a t t i r e of ba i l i f

f s . W e ho l d tha t c ou r t s ha ve i nh e r e ntpo w er
o v e r th e ir c o u rtro o m s, in c lu d in g th e a u th o ri ty to d e fin e th e a tti re o f b a ili ffs a n d o th e rs in att endanc e. ¶28. T he f

i r s t part of s ect i on thr ee s t at es that bai l i f f s ar e t o be as s i gned t o s peci f i c j udges
an d m u st pe rform o n ly n o n -j u d ici al du ti es. W e h o ld to d ay that the d u ti es o f a b ail if f
cons t i tut e l aw enf

or cementdut i es ; thus , the dut i es m ay be non- j udi ci al
. Sect i on 19- 25- 69 def i nes the du t i es of

the s her i f

f , w hi ch i ncl ude mai nt ai ni ng the s af ety, cl eanl i nes s , and comfortof

the courthous e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 69. T he s econd partof s ect i on thr ee
s t at es thatthe s her i f

f m us tenf

or ce a l l or der s of

the C our t . Sect i on 19- 25- 35 s t at es thatthe
s h e ri ff s h a ll “ e x e c u te a ll o rd e rs a n d d e c re e s o f s a id c o u rt s d ir e c te d to h im to b e e x e c u te d .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 . T h e re fo re , w e h o ld th e se c o n d p a rt o f s e c tio n th re e to b e in compl i ance w i th s t atut ory l aw ; how ever , w e not e thatthe courtm ay noti s s ue or der s that
c o n tr a d ic t s ta tu to ry la w , a s is th e is s u e in th e in s ta n t d is p u te . ¶29. Sect i on f

ours t at es thatthe s her i ff m ustest abli sh a di s ci pl i ne f orthe s ecur i ty and
m ainten an ce o f the co urtthat m ustbe ap proved by the co urt , the sheri ff m ay setbail i ff

s’
s al ar i es on an “e qui t abl e bas i s , ” and bai l i f f s m ay be a s s i gned t o the s her i f f onl y f or“s peci al dut i es ” oremer genci es . W e hol d thatsec t i on fouri s voi d i n f ul l underthr ee s ect i ons of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. Fi r s t , Sect i on 19- 25- 19 st at es bai l i f f s ar e deputy s her i f

f s w ho m ay perf orm al l act s and d uti es of the sheri ff , and the sheri ff

m ay setthe co m pen sat i on of bai l i ff s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -25 -19
. S ec o n d , S e c tio n 1 9 -25 -69 d efine s the d u ti es o f th e sh eriff , w hich in clud e m ai ntai ning the safety, cl eanli ness, and com fortof the co urtho use. M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -6 9 . T h ird , S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 5 sta tes th a t th e sh e riff m u s t a tte n d a ll

### 14

s es s i ons of

court . U nderthe above styl ed code s ect i ons , t he s her i f f need nothave adi s ci pl i ne ap p rov ed b y the c o u rt . T h e sh eriff’s du ti es d eterm ine th e d u ti es o f th e b ail if fs; thu s, b ail if

fs
are alw ay s ass ign ed to the sh eriff an d att en d co u rtas d ep u ti es o f th e sh eriff
. ¶30
. S ect i on fi ve d efi nes bail i ff s as of fi cers of the co urtand no tl aw enforcem ent off i cers . It a lso sta tes th a t a ju d g e m a y rem o v e a b a ili ff w h e n h e fails to m a in tain c o n fid e n c e s a n d fa ils t o pr ef orm hi s dut i es . O n the otherhand, s ect i on f i ve st at es thatthe s her i f f m ay r emove a bai l i f f for go od caus e and upon the advi ce a nd cons entof the j udge. W hi l e w e expr es s no
o p in io n h e re o n m a in tain in g c o n fid e n c e s, w e h o ld to d a y th a t th e d u ties o f a b a ili ff c o n stitu te l aw enf or cementdut i es . M or eover , r emoval of ba i l i f f s i s c l ear l y governed by Sect i on 19- 25- 1 9 , a n d se c tio n fiv e d ir e c tly c o n fl ic ts w ith S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -1 9
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 19. T hus , w i th the exc ept i on of m ai nt ai ni ng conf

i dences , w e hol d the r emai ni ng part s of
s e c tio n fi v e to b e v o id
. ¶31. Sect i on s i x s t at es that H i nds C ounty s hal l pr ovi de s uf f i ci ent addi t i onal bai l i f

f s w hen
n e e d e d . W e h o ld th a t se c tio n six re fe rs to “ rid in g b a ili ffs ” a n d th a t itis in c o m p lian c e w ith S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 1 . U n d e r S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -3 1 , jud g e s’ a u th o rity o f a p p o in tm e n t ex ten d s o n ly to ri d in g b a ilif

fs w h o a re c o m p e n s a te d b y th e c o u n ty . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -3 1
. ¶32. W e hol d s ect i ons one and f ourt o be voi d i n f

ul l be caus e they compl et el y contr adi ct
s t atut ory l aw . W e hol d s ect i ons thr ee a nd f i ve t o be voi d i n partto t he ext entthatthey
c o n tra d ict s tatu to ry law . A n d w e h o ld se c tio n s tw o a n d s ix to b e in c o m p lian c e w ith
s t atut ory l aw and w i t hin t he pr ovi nce of the courtt o or der
. W e thi nk i ti s a bett erpr act i ce f orthe ci r cui tcourt– w hen s t at i ng the dr es s orconf i dence s of ba i l i f

f s – t o i s s ue courtrul es
overcourtor der s , butw e cannots ay the 1996 O r deri s ent i r el y agai ns ts t atut ory l aw . T o the

### 15

ext e ntthe 1 99 6 O r de rv i ol a t e s s t a tut ory l a w , a s s t a t e d he r e i n, the 2 01 2 O r de ra nd O pi ni on
a ls o v io la te s s ta tu to ry la w . CO NC L US I ON ¶3 3
. T h e ins tant m a tter h in g e s o n w h e th e r b a ili ffs a re d ep u ti es o f th e sh eriff o r co u rt p erso n n el. T h e lan g u ag e o f T it le 1 9 , C h ap ter 2 5 is plain a n d u n am b igu o u s. T h e L eg isl ature has em po w ered the sheri ff w i th the aut ho ri ty to appo i nt, rem ov e, and com pen sat e bail i ff s. B ai l i f f s appoi nt ed by the s her i f f a l s o ha ve l aw e nf

or cementdut i es , and thus , qual i f y as l aw
e n f o r c e me n to f

f i c e r s . W e h o l d th a t , u n d e rth e M i s s i s s i p p i Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d s t a tu t o ry l a w, part s of the 1996 O r derand the 2012 O r derand O pi ni on exce ed the pow erof the H i nds C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rta n d a re th e re fo re v o id
. ¶ 3 4
. VACAT ED I N P ART AND RE NDE RE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.