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 0 - KM - 0 0 6 9 8 - S CT RA CHEL D. NEL S ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 30/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S . RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : L ANC E O’ NE AL M I XON VI CTOR W . CARM ODY , J R. AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - M I S DE M E ANOR D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 25/ 2011 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. , R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n O ct ober27, 2006, R ache l N el s on w as i nvol ved i n an aut om obi l e col l i s i on. T he Ci ty o f Ri c h l a n d c h a r g e d h e rwi th d r i v i n g u n d e rth e i n f l u e n c e ( DUI ) , f

i r s to f f e n s e . On N ovember15, 2006, N el s on pl eade d n o lo co ntendere i n the M uni ci pal C our tof R i chl and. T he courtf

ound N el s on gui l ty a nd i m pos ed a s ent ence of f or ty- ei ghthour s i n j ai l , s us pended,
a lo n g w ith a $ 1 ,0 0 0 fi n e a n d $ 2 4 4 in a s s e s s m e n ts . ¶ 2 . O n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 0 6 , N e lso n filed a n o tice o f a p p e a l in th e R a n k in C o u n ty C irc u it C l erk’ s of

f i ce pur s uantt o U ni f

or m R ul e of

C i r cui tand C ounty C our tP r ocedur e 12. 02,“A w ri t of pr ocede ndo i s i s s ued by a c our tof sup er i orj ur i s di ct i on t o a courtof 1 i nf er i orj ur i s di ct i on t o enf

or ce the l ow ercourt ’ s j udgm ent . ” Fe rr e ll v. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 317, 31 9 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp . 20 01 ) ( c i t i ng P o o l v . S ta te , 176 M i s s . 514, 515, 169 So. 886, 887 (19 3 6 )). A cert i f

i cat e of s ervi ce s t at es thatN el s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as s erved on the 2 pr os ecut orthe day i tw as f i l ed, on M ar ch 27, 2007. H ow ever, the or derof di s m i s s al w as ent er ed on thats ame day. O urre vi ew of the r ecor d i ndi cat es i tw as the under s t andi ng of the p a rties a n d th e c o u rt th a t, fo r a ll p ra c tica l p u rp o se s, th e p ro se c u to r h a d n o o p p o rtu n ity to r es pond t o the mot i on. 

### 2 s t at i ng t hata suf

f i ci entcas h appeal and cas h bond had been pos t ed, and r eques t i ng a j ury tr i al i n county courtde novo. T he tr i al dat e w as s etf orA pr i l 2, 2007. O n M ar ch 27, 2007, N elso n fi led a m o ti o n to d ism iss th e a p p ea l on w ri t of pr ocede ndo and r eturn the ca us e of act i on t o t he M uni ci pal C ourtof R i chl and f ori m pos i t i on of s ent ence . O n the s ame day, the R anki n C ounty C our tgra nt ed N el s on’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s and or der ed the mat t erback t o the M u n ici p al C o u rto f R ichlan d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo . 1 ¶3. O n M ar ch 30, 2007, a R i chl and ci ty pros ecut orfi l ed a m oti on t o setasi de t he or der of di s m i s s al , t o r ei ns t at e N el s on’ s appea l , and t o s t ay the pr ocee di ngs . In t his m ot i on, the pr os ecut orar gued that N el s on’ s acc i denthad ca us ed s er i ous i nj ur i es t o D ebr a East er l i ng, but that the m att er i nad vert entl y h ad b een p res ented i n m un i ci pal courtas a D U I f i rs toff ense w i thoutcourtper s onnel orthe pr os ecut orhavi ng had know l edge of the i nj ur i es . T he pr os ecut oral s o ar gued thatthe county courthad di s m i s s ed N el s on’ s a ppeal w i th no not i ce t o the S t at e, and thatthe county courthad l acke d the pow ert o di s m i s s N el s on’ s appea l

2
w i thoutan agr eementby the St at e. T he prose cut oral s o as s ert ed thatno j eopar dy had att ache d beca us e N el s on had ent er ed a “ no cont es t ” pl ea i n the M uni ci pal C our tof R i chl and. ¶ 4 . A h e a rin g o n the p ro se c u to r’s m o tio n too k p lac e o n A p ri l 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , in th e c o u n ty

### 3

court . T he county courtf oun d t hatthe ci ty’ s m ot i on t o s etas i de the or derof di s m i s s al had been t i m el y f

i l ed. A l though the case had b een di s m i s s ed, the county courtas s ert ed j ur i s di ct i on overi tfort he l i m i t ed purpos e of adj udi cat i ng the ci ty’ s m ot i on t o s etas i de the
or derof di s m i s s al . B oth t he pr os ecut orand N el s on’ s at t orney i nf or m ed t he cour tt hat , atthe t i me o f Ne l s o n ’ s p l e a i n mu n i c i p a l c o u r t , n e i th e rp a r ty h a d k n o wn th a tth e a c c i d e n tv i c t i ms had been s er i ous l y i nj ur ed. N el s on’ s att orney s t at ed thathe f i r s thad di s cover ed the i nj ur i es w hen i nf or m ed by couns el f

orone of the vi ct i m s on D ece m ber28, 2006. H e s t at ed thathe th e n h a d d isc u ss e d th e m a tter w ith th e p ro se c u to r, a n d th e y h a d d e c id e d n e ith e r p a rty w o u ld take an y ac ti o n in the ca se u n ti l th ey co n ferred o n M arc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 . H o w ev er, N elso n ’s att orney s t at ed thatthe pros ecut ordi d notr es pond t o hi s att empt s t o cont acthi m i n M ar ch 2 0 0 7 . N e lso n ’s a tto rn e y sta ted th a t, du e to th e a p p ro a c h in g trial d a te a n d h is in a b ility to c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e p ro s e c u to r, h e h a d fi le d th e m o tio n to v o lu n ta ri ly d is m is s th e c a s e . ¶5 . T he courth e a r d t e s t i mony f r om D e t e c t i ve J ohn K i ng, an i nves t i gat orw i t h t he R ichlan d P o li ce D ep artm en t. K ing t esti fi ed th at his fi rstm ee ti n g w ith th e d istri ct att o rne y ’s
o ffic e w a s o n M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 . H e tes tified th a t th e c a se w a s n o t re a d y fo r p re s e n ta tio n to the gr and j ury due t o the abs ence of m edi cal recor ds unders ubpoena. N el s on’ s att orney ar gued thatthe ca s e s houl d be di s m i s s ed due t o the ci ty’ s de l ay i n pr es ent i ng the ca s e t o the d is tr ic t a tto rn e y ’s o ff

ic e . ¶6. T he coun ty court st at ed that i t had grant ed the m oti on t o di sm i ss the appea l becau se t he i nv e s t i ga t i ng o f

f i c e rwas n o l on ge ra va i l a bl e , the c i ty ha d s e c ur e d a c on vi c t i on f or N el son’ s of

f ens e, and the ci ty had t aken no s t eps t o s ubm i tthe mat t ert o the di s tr i ct att orney’s o ff

i ce. T he county courtf ound that , underthe U ni f or m R ul es of

C i r cui tand

### 4

C o u n ty C o u rtP rac ti ce , a n d the p reru les ca ses o f B a n gv. S ta te , 106 M i s s . 824, 64 So. 734 ( M i s s . 1914) , and T

h ig p e n v. S ta te , 2 0 6 M iss . 8 7 , 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 6 8 (M iss . 1 9 4 9 ), th e c o u n ty c o u rt m a y d ism iss a n a p p e a l fro m m u n icip a l c o u rt a t th e a p p e llan t’s re q u e st a t a n y tim e u n til the pr es ent at i on of

evi dence begi ns , and may di s m i s s i taf t erthe pres entat i on of

evi dence begi ns , w i th the agr eementof the part i es . H ow ever , the county cour tal s o f ound thati ti s the bett erpr act i ce t o gi ve the St at e an opportuni ty t o r es pond t o a mot i on t o di s m i s s t o as s ur e the def endanthas gai ned no adva nt age ove rt he St at e by nondi s cl os ur e of i nf or m at i on thatw as s o le ly in th e d e fe n d a n t’ s p o s s e s s io n . ¶7. T he county cour tf ound thatN el s on had nei therw i thhel d i nf or m at i on norgai ned an unf ai radvant age ove rthe St at e. H ow ever , the county courtf ound thati ts houl d have gi ven the ci ty an opportuni ty t o r es pond t o N el s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he county courtr ei ns t at ed the appe al t o heart he ci ty’ s r es pons e. T he ci ty m oved t o nol l e pr os equithe D U I - f i r s tchar ge, to en ab le i ts i n d ictm en t of N elso n for the felon y crim e o f D U I m ay h em . T h e c o u n ty co u rt grant ed t he m ot i on and nol l e pr os s ed the D U I - f

i r s tchar ge. T he or derent er ed af t erthe h e a rin g sta ted :

IT IS O R D E R E D A N D A D J U D G E D that the p revi ou s ordert o D i sm i ss a n d O rd e r to R e m a n d B a c k o n W rit o f P ro c e d e n d o e n ter e d M a rc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 is her eby s etas i de and the A ppeal i s her eby r ei ns t at ed. IT IS F U R T H E R O R D E R E D A N D A D JU D G E D th a t th e r e q u e st to St ay the Pr ocee di ng i s deni ed. I T I S FU R T H E R O R D E R E D A N D A D J U D G E D thatthe couns el f or the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi m ade a m ot i on ore t enus t hatt he above s tyl ed ca s e be N oll e P rosequi and that an O rderof N oll e P rosequi i n the abo ve st yled cause be and he r eby i s ent er ed. N e ls o n fi le d a m o tio n fo r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . T h is m o tio n w a s d e n ie d . ¶ 8 . N e lso n a p p e a led to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f R a n k in C o u n ty . O n A p ril 1 , 2 0 1 0 , the c irc u itN el s on’ s appea l came t o thi s Courtunde rthe f or m er“thr ee- courtrul e. ” I n Jones v. 3 Ci t y of Ri dg e land , 48 So. 3d 530 ( M i s s . 2010) , thi s C our tfoun d t he t hr ee- courtrul e t o be u n c o n stitu tio n a l. In d e sc rib in g th e ru le, th is C o u rt sta ted th a t it pr ohi bi t s def

endant s w ho ar e aggr i eved by a deci s i on or i gi nat i ng i n j us t i ce or m u n icip a l co u rt, an d w h o h a v e a p p e a led to b o th c o u n ty c o u rt a n d c irc u it co u rt, f r om s ucce s s f

ul l y a ppeal i ng t o thi s C our tunl es s tw o r equi r ement s ar e met : ( 1) the appe al m us ti nvol ve a f eder al ors t at e cons t i tut i onal ques t i on, and ( 2) ei ther th e c ir c u it c o u rt ju d g e o r a S u p re m e C o u rt ju s tic e m u s t “ a llo w ” th e a p p e a l. I d. a t 5 3 4 . 

### 5 c o u rt issu e d a n o rd e r a ffirm in g th e c o u n ty c o u rt’s r u lin g . N e lso n filed a m o tio n to p e rm it appea l t o t hi s C our tpurs uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11-51- 81, and on M ay 27, 2010, thi s C our tperm i t t ed N el s on’ s appea l . N el son ar gues that : ( 1) the county courthad no 3 juri sd ict ion to se t asi d e the o rde r of d ism issal and rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo ; and ( 2) d o u b le je o p a rd y w a s in v o k e d b e c a u se th e c o u n ty c o u rt nol l e pr os s ed the cha r ge af

t erthe
a p p e a l w a s ta k e n . DI S CU S S I ON I . W HETH ER TH E CO UN TY C OU RT H AD J UR I SD I CT I ON TO SET AS I DE T HE OR DE R O F DI S M I S S AL AND R E M AND. ¶9. N el s on ar gues that s he had a r i ght t o di s m i s s her appea l vol unt ar i l y. She ar gues that the d ism issal and rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo depr i ved the county courtof j uri s di ct i on. A ccor di ng t o N el s on, once he rappea l w as di s m i s s ed and the ca s e r emanded on w r i tof pr ocede ndo , the co un ty co urtw as unab l e t o ret ake j uri sdi ct i on even forthe li m i t ed p urpose o f co n side ri n g w h ethe r t o set aside the o rde r of d ism issal and rem an d o n w ri t ofpr ocede ndo . T h e ju ri s d ic tio n a l q u e s tio n p re s e n te d is g o v e rn e d b y M is s is s ip p i’ s p ro c e d u ra l la w . ¶1 0 . T h e co u n ty co u rt fou n d that it h as au tho ri ty to d ism iss an a p p e a l o n th e a p p ell an t’ s

### 6

m oti on t o v olunt ari l y d ism iss t h e ap peal, and that i tw as w i thin i t s aut ho ri ty to di sm i ss N el s on’ s appeal atherre ques t . H ow ever , on r econs i der at i on, the county courtdet erm i ned thati thad err ed by di s m i s s i ng N el s on’ s a ppeal w i thoutt i m el y not i ce t o the ci ty, and w i thout the benef

i tof the ci ty’ s ar gum ent s i n oppos i t i on t o di s m i s s al . W e mustdet erm i ne w hether the co un ty co urterr ed b y recon si deri ng the d i sm i ssal of N el son’s appeal un d er these
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . ¶11. T he U ni f

or m R ul es of C i r cui t and C ounty C our t al l ow appea l s t o c ounty courtf r om j us t i ce c our torm uni ci pal court . U R C C C 12. 02. R ul e 12. 02 s t at es t hatan i ndi vi dual w ho has been “ adj udged gui l ty of a c r i m i nal of

f ens e by a j us t i ce ormuni ci pal courtm ay appe al to c o u n ty c o u rt o r, i f t h e re is n o c o u n ty c o u rt h a v in g ju ri s d ic tio n , th e n to c ir c u it c o u rt . . . .” f ora tr i al de novo. U R C C C 12. 02( A ) ( 1) , ( C ) . Per f ect i ng the appe al r equi r es the si m ult aneo us fi l i ng of a noti ce of app eal, a c o stbo nd , and an ap pearance b on d o r cas h d e p o sit w ith in th irty d a y s o f th e ju d g m e n t. U R C C C 1 2 .0 2 (A )(1 ). W h e n th e a p p e a l is per f e c t e d, the pr i orj ud gmen tof c on vi c t i on i s s t a ye d. U RC CC 12 . 02 ( C) . Rul e 12 . 02
e x p re ss ly se ts o u t th re e situ a tio n s in w h ic h th e trial c o u rt m a y d ism iss th e a p p e a l w ith pr ej udi ce: ( 1) i f

the def endantfa i l s t o postthe r equi r ed appe ar ance bond orcas h depos i t ; ( 2) i f the not i ce of

ap peal does notcont ai n the i nf or m at i on r equi r ed by R ul e 12. 02( A ) ( 2) , and the courtdoes notal l ow amendm ent ; o r ( 3) i f t he def endantf ai l s t o appea ratthe t i m e and p la c e s e t b y th e c o u rt . U R C C C 1 2 .0 2 (A )( 1 ), ( A )( 2 ), ( B )( 1 ). ¶1 2. O n s ever al occa s i ons , thi s Courth a s d i s c us s e d a d e f e nd a nt ’ s abi l i t y t o obt ai n a di s m i s s al of

an appea l fr om j us t i ce courtor m uni ci pal courtf ora tr i al de novo. I n B ang v. S ta te , 106 M i s s . 824, 64 So. 734, 735 ( 1914) , Pi erBang w as convi ct ed i n j us t i ce c our tof the

### 7

unl aw f ul s al e of i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor s and f i ned $150. B ang appea l ed t o the ci r cui tcourt , and
a tr ia l to o k p la c e . I

d. A fte r th e S tate h a d res ted it s c a se , B a n g m o v e d to d ism iss th e a p p e a l. I d. The c i r c u i tc o u r to v e rru l e d th e mo t i o n , a n d Ba n g a p p e a l e d th e ru l i n g t o th e S u p r e me C o u rt . I d. I n hol di ng t hatB ang had no ri ghtt o have t he appea l di s m i s s ed, the C our ts t at ed: I tw i l l be s een thatthe ca s e i s br oughti nt o t he ci r cui tcour tby appea l f r om the ju d g m e n t o f th e ju stic e o f th e p e a c e c o u rt. W h e n it re a c h e s th e c irc u it co u rt, i ti s ther e f

ortr i al anew , and di s pos i t i on j ustas o t her c as es ther ei n pendi ng. T he ci r cui tcourti s a tr i al court . T he ca s e, al though br oughtt o thatcourtby a p p e a l, i s th e re fo r tria l. In th is p ro se c u tio n fo r a c rim in a l o ffe n se , ap p e llan t, w hi l e hi s cas e w as being t r i ed, occupi ed the s ame posi t i on as any other def endantbei ng tr i ed on a c r i m i nal char ge. I d. T he C our tal s o appea r ed t o r el y on the f actthatthe St at e had pr es ent ed i t s evi dence agai ns tB ang bef

or e he ha d m oved f

ordi s m i s s al , s t at i ng: T he tr i al j udge di d noterrw hen he ove rrul ed the m ot i on of appel l ant i n thi s cas e f

orper m i ssi on t o di s m i s s hi s appea l . A ppel l antw as bei ng tr i ed a n e w i n th e c i r c u i tc o u r t . He wa s o n tr i a l f o rth e c r i me c h a r g e d a g a i n s th i m. H i s cas e w as bei ng di s pos ed of as otherand l i ke ca s es i n thatcourt . A l l of the evi dence t o pr ove hi s gui l thad bee n i ntr oduced on b ehalf of the s t at e. T he pr oof w as s uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta ve r di ctc onvi ct i ng hi m . H e had no r i ghtthen t o have hi s cas e di s m i s s ed. I d. ¶13. T he C our ta ddr es s ed the i s s ue aga i n i n T h ig p e n v. S ta te , 206 M i s s . 87, 39 So. 2d 768 ( 1949 ) . H e nry Cl a y Thi gp e n w a s c on vi c t e d i n j us t i c e c ou r to f the u nl a w f

ul s al e of i nt oxi cat i ng l i quor s and s ent ence d t o pa y a f i ne of $250 and cos t s . T hi gpen appe al ed t o the
c ir c u it c o u rt , b u t o n th e m o rn in g o f t ri a l, h e m o v e d fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . I d. at769. W hen the tr ial co u rtde n ied th e m o ti o n , T h igp en m o v ed to d ism iss th e a p p ea l on a w ri t of pr ocede ndo . I d. T h ig p e n w a s fo u n d g u ilty a n d a p p e a led to th e S u p re m e C o u rt . I d. C i t i ng Bang , the C our ts t at ed that“one appeal i ng a convi ct i on f r om the J us t i ce o f the Peac e courtt o the

### 8

C i r cui tC our ts t ands ther e f ortr i al de novo as def

endant and he occ upi es i n thatcourtthe
sa m e a tti tu d e o f a d e fe n d a n t as h e d id in th e co u rt o f th e Ju stic e o f th e P e a c e a n d a s s u c h is i m po t entt o di s m i s s the ca s e. ” I d. T h e C o u rthe ld th at T h igp en “h ad no m o re ri g h t to di s m i s s the appe al i n the C i r cui tCourtthan he had t o ent era nol l e pr os equi i n the courtof the Just i ce of the P eace” b ec au se a defend ant charged w i th a cri m e has no ri gh tt o d i sm i ss th e c a s e a g a in s t h im fr o m th e d o c k e t. I d. ¶14. I n P e e

p les v. S ta te , 216 M i s s . 790, 63 So. 2d 236 ( 1953) , and P a rh a m v. S ta te , 229 So. 2d 582 ( M i s s . 1969) , thi s C our tr el i ed upon Bangand T hi gpen t o f i nd a def endantw as notent i t l ed t o di s m i s s an appea l f r om j us t i ce c our t . I n eac h cas e, the tr i al courthad overrul ed the def endant ’ s mot i on t o di s m i s s the appea l , made on the day of tr i al . I n P eepl

es , the C o u rt, ci t i ng Bangand T

hi gpen , f ou nd w i tho ut dis cussi on that the i ssue w as w i tho ut m erit . In P ar ham , the C ourt , ci t i ng T hi gpen and P eepl

es , fo u n d th a t “ th e a rg u m e n t th a t th e c irc u it
cou rti s r equ i red t o d i sm i ss an app eal fr om the Just i ce of the P eace C ou rtup on the requ est of the def endanthas been r ef

ut ed i n atl eas ttw o cas es f r om thi s C our t . ” The C our ts uppor t ed i t s h o l d i n g wi th a q u o t e f r o m T hi gpen ’s discu ssion o f Bang . P ar ham , 229 So. 2d at584. ¶15. T he C our tr evi s i t ed the i s s ue i n L e e v. S ta te , 3 5 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). W il b ert L ee w as convi ct ed i n j us t i ce courtof dr i vi ng w hi l e i nt oxi cat ed and s ent ence d t o ni nety days in ja il a n d fi n e d $ 3 2 0 . I d. at112. H e ap pealed to ci r cui tcourtf ora tr i al de novo. Subse quent l y, hi s counse l m oved t o di s m i s s the appe al . T he ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed the mot i on an d rem an d ed the c ase to justi ce c o u rto n w ri t of pr ocede ndo . I d. W i th new couns el , L ee m ov ed t o setasi de t he dis m i ssal and w ri t of pr ocede ndo and r ei ns t at e the appe al ; the tr i al
c o u rt o v e rr u le d th e m o tio n . I d. L e e a p p e a led to th is C o u rt, arg u in g th a t h e w a s im p ro p e rly

### 9

d e n ie d a h e a ri n g o n th e m o tio n to s e t a s id e . I d. L e e a rg u e d th a t h e w o u ld h a v e sh o w n a t a h e a ri n g th a t h e n e v e r h a d a u th o ri z e d h is p ri o r c o u n s e l to m o v e fo r d is m is s a l. I d. ¶16. T he C our tf

ound t hat, in order t o dis m i ss an a pp eal an d rem and on a w r i t of pr ocede ndo , the d e fe n d a n t m u st b e c a lled in o p e n c o u rt a n d g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ity to p ro s e c u te th e a p p e a l. I

d. ( ci t i ng Mc Co

y v. S ta te , 302 So. 2d 509 (M i s s . 1974) ) . B eca us e the appel l at e r ecor d w as i nconclusi ve as t o w hetherthe def endanthad bee n pr es entatthe d is m is s a l o f th e a p p e a l, a h e a ri n g o n th e is s u e w a s n e c e s s a ry . I d. at113. T he C our tr ever s ed and r emanded f

ora hea r i ng on w hetherdi s m i s s al of the appe al w as pr oper , orw hetherthe
m o tio n to s e t a s id e th e d is m is s a l s h o u ld b e g ra n te d . I d. ¶17 . N elson cit es L ee i n s uppor t of her ar gum ent that the count y court l acks j ur i s di ct i on to reinstate a n ap p ea l th at ha s b ee n d ism issed an d the c ase rem an d ed o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo . She s peci f

i cal l y r el i es on the l anguage i n L ee that“w her e the j us t i ce c our thad al r eady f ound the appel l antgui l ty and had pass ed se nt ence i n t he caus e, an orde rdi s m i s s i ng an appeal on a w ri t of pr ocede ndo is tan tam o u n t t o a g u il ty p lea a n d ac ce p tanc e o f th e jus ti ce co u rt s ent ence . ” L ee , 357 So. 2d at113. Fr om thi s s t at em ent , N el s on concl udes that , w i th the
o rde r dism issi n g th e a p p ea l and rem an d ing o n w ri t ofpr ocede ndo , t he county courtdepr i ved i t s el f of any f ur therj ur i s di ct i on, and thatthe county courtw as w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on t o s et
a sid e th e o rd e r o f d ism iss a l. ¶ 1 8 . H o w e v e r, L ee actual l y s t ands f orthe oppos i t e of

N el son’s propo si t i on. I n L ee , the C our tr ever s ed the ci r cui tc our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s etas i de an or derthathad di s m i s s ed
an ap p ea l and rem an d ed o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo . I d. T he C our tre m anded f ora hear i ng and a d eterm ination o f w h ethe r th e o rde r of d ism issal and rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo sh o u ld

### 10

b e u p h e ld o r s e t a s id e . I d. T hi s C our tdet erm i ned thatdi s m i s s al m ay have been i m pr oper b e c a u se L e e h a d n o t b e e n p re se n t in o p e n c o u rt a n d w a s n o t g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to p ro s e c u te th e a p p e a l. T h e re fo re , L ee expl i ci t l y re cogni zed thata cour tt o w hi ch an appeal h a s b e e n tak e n fo r a trial d e n o v o is em p o w e re d to: (1 ) g ra n t th e d e fe n d a n t’s a p p ro p ria tely ti m ed m o ti o n to d ism iss th e a p p ea l and rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo ; a nd ( 2) s etas i de the
o rde r o f d ism issal an d rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo , upon a det erm i nat i on thatthe or derof d is m is s a l a n d re m a n d w a s im p ro p e r. I d. ; see al so Fe rr e ll v. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 317, 320- 21 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶1 9 . U n d er L ee , the c ou nty co urt ha d j ur i s di c t i on t o co ns i de r the mot i on t o s e t a s i de t he
or derof di s m i s s al and r emand. T he county courtdet erm i ned thatthe or derof di s m i s s al and
re m a n d w a s im p ro p e r b e c a u se th e c ity h a d lac k e d n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ity to r e sp o n d to N el s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T her ef or e, the courtr ei ns t at ed the appe al , gi vi ng the St at e an oppor tuni ty t o r es pond t o N el s on’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . N el son ar gues thatthi s rul i ng i nf r i nged upon herr i ghtt o di s m i s s the appe al v olunt ar i l y w i thoutthe ci ty’ s cons ent . She ci t es precedentf

r om O kl ahoma and W yom i ng thata party m ay di s m i s s an appe al f r om j us t i ce c our tt o county courtatany t i m e bef or e the comm ence m entof the t ri al w i thoutthe
c o n s e n t o f th e o th e r p a rt y . O ’ R ourke v. O ’

R ourke , 1 4 2 O k la. 2 3 8 , 2 8 6 P . 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 (19 3 0 ); Ma y o tt v. K n o tt , 1 6 W y o . 1 0 8 , 9 2 P . 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 (1 9 0 7 ). H o w e v e r, th is p re c e d e n t is in a p p o site t o thi s cas e. T he r eas on the county courts etas i de the or derof di s m i s s al and re m and w as not beca us e the ci t y had notcons ent ed t o the or der . R ather , the courts etas i de the or derof d ism issal and rem an d be ca u se the city ha d no t b ee n afford ed an op p o rtu n ity t o resp o n d to the mot i on t o di s m i s s . O n r econs i der at i on, the county courtde t erm i ned thati thad err ed by

### 11

ent er i ng the or derof

di s m i s s al and r emand w i thoutal l ow i ng a res pons e f r om the ci ty. T her ef or e, the county courts etas i de the or der of di s m i s s al and r emand. W e f i nd thatthe deci s i on to hea r t he ci ty’ s ar gum ent s on the mot i on t o di s m i s s i n thi s cas e w as w i thi n the
c o u n ty c o u rt ’s s o u n d d is c re tio n . I I . W HETH ER D OU BLE- J EOPA RD Y PRO TECTI ON S ARE I NV OK ED W HEN THE C O U N TY C OU RT A LLOW S THE STATE TO NO LLE PR O S E Q U I A CR I M I NAL CHAR GE AF T E R AN AP P E AL F OR A T RI AL D E N O V O H A S B E E N D IS M IS S E D B Y T H E A P P E L L A N T . ¶2 0 . A ft er se tt ing asid e the o rd e r o f d ism iss a l a n d re m a n d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo , the count y courtgr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on t o nol l e pr os equithe D U I- fi rs tcharge ag ai nst N el s on. N el s on ar gues t hat , becaus e she has bee n convi ct ed of D U I - f i r s tand s ent ence d by the muni ci pal c our t , doubl e- j eopar dy cons i der at i ons pr eventthe St at e f r om obt ai ni ng a n o lle p ro se q u i o n th a t c h a rg e w ith th e in te n tio n o f s u b s e q u e n tly in d ic tin g h e r f o r f e lo n y D U I. ¶21. Sect i on 22 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890 pr ovi des that “no per s on’ s l i f e or l i berty s hal l be tw i ce pl ace d i n j eopar dy f orthe sam e of

f ens e; butther e mustbe an a ctual acqui t t al orconvi ct i on on the m er i t s t o ba ra notherpr os ecut i on. ” M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 22. “U nd er the p l ai n w ordi ng of A rt i cl e 3, § 2 2, i n order f or this st at e' s D ou ble J eop ardy C l ause t o appl y the ac cus ed mustf i r s ts uf f eran ac tual acqui t t al or convi ct i on on the mer i t s of the of f ens e. ” State v. Flem ing, 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 , 1 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 )). D o u b le je o p a rd y p ro tec ts ag ainsta secon d p rosecut i on aft er acquitt al or conv i ct i on , as w el l as prot ect i ng against
m u ltip le p u n is h m e n ts . B ro w n e r v . S ta te , 947 So. 2d 254, 266 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng S ch iro v. Far ley , 5 1 0 U . S . 2 2 2 , 2 2 9 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 7 8 3 , 1 2 7 L . E d . 2 d 4 7 (19 9 4 )). ¶22. T he entry of

a nol l e pr os equido es not bar anot her prosecut i on forthe sam e off enseA s the di s s entpoi nt s out , “i n [ T h ig p e n v. R o b e rts , 468 U . S. 27, 104 S. C t . 2916, 82 4 L . E d. 2d 23 ( 1984) , and B lack ledg e v. Perry , 417 U . S. 21, 94 S. C t . 2098, 40 L . E d. 2d 628 (1 9 7 4 )], f

e lo n y in d ic tm e n ts h a d b e e n b ro u g h t w h ile th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ a p p e a ls w e re p e n d in g .” 

### 12 u n d e r a n e w in d ic tm e n t. D e la B e c k w ith v. S ta te , 707 S o. 2 d 54 7, 569 (M i s s . 1997) . B ut N elso n d o es n o t claim sh e h as b ee n tw ice p lace d in jeo p ard y for the sam e o ffen se. R athe r, s he cont ends thats he may be pr os ecut ed i n t he f utur e f orf el ony D U I . T her ef

or e, the ques t i on of

w hetherthe m uni ci pal c our tpr ocee di ngs w oul d ba ra s ubs equent pr os ecut i on u n d e r d o u b le -j e o p a rd y c o n s id e ra tio n s is n o t r ip e fo r d e te rm in a tio n . See Y o rk v. S ta te , 751 S o. 2d 11 94 , 19 99 -1200 (M i ss. C t . A pp . 19 99 ). F or the sam e rea so n , the d ue-process arg u m en ts po sit ed b y the d issen t are ina p p rop ri ate for co n side rati o n at th is t im e. T h is C o u rt 4 d o e s n o t is s u e a d v is o ry o p in io n s . Ta l la h a tc h ie Ge n . Hos

p . v. How e , 4 9 S o. 3 d 86 , 93 (M i ss. 2 0 1 0 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶23. W e f

i nd that the county court had j ur i s di ct i on t o s et as i de the or der of di s m i s s al and
rem an d o n w ri t of pr ocede ndo an d reinstate the ap p ea l. W e fu rth er fi n d that N elso n ’s doubl e- j eopar dy ar gum enti s notr i pe f orourcons i der at i on. T her ef or e, w e af

f i r m the d e c is io n o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt , w h ic h a ff ir m e d th e d e c is io n o f t h e c o u n ty c o u rt . ¶ 2 4 . AF F I RM ED . W ALLER , C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , RANDOL P H AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI O N J OI NED BY DI CK I NSON, P. J . , AND KI NG , J . LAM AR, J . , J OI NS I N PART. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 5 . T h e o n ly re a so n c ited b y th e S tate a s g ro u n d s fo r re in sta tin g N e lso n ’s a p p e a l an d n o lle

### 13

pr os s i ng the mi s demeanorchar ge w as t o al l ow the St at e an opportuni ty t o i ndi ctN el s on f or a fel on y ch arge. T he U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rthas cl earl y h el d thatthe D u e P rocess C laus e o f th e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t to th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n p roh ibit s the S tat e’s pur s ui ng a f

el ony i ndi ctm entf

ol l ow i ng a de f

endant ’ s a ppeal of

a mi s demeanorchar ge f orthe
s a m e c o n d u c t. T

h ig p e n v. R o b e rts , 4 6 8 U . S . 2 7 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 9 1 6 , 8 2 L . E d . 2 d 2 3 (19 8 4 ); B lack ledg e v. P erry , 417 U . S . 2 1, 9 4 S . C t . 2098, 40 L . E d. 2d 628 ( 1974) . A ccor di ngl y, b e c a u se the re w a s n o v a lid rea so n to se t as id e the d ism iss a l of N e lso n ’s a p p e a l an d to n o lle p ro s th e m is d e m e a n o r c h a rg e w ith o u t h e r c o n s e n t, I m u s t r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. ¶ 2 6 . T h e m a

jo rity ’s b e lief th a t “a t th e tim e o f N e lso n ’s p lea in m u n icip a l co u rt, n e ith e r p a rty h a d k n o w n th a t th e ac c id e n t vic tim s h a d b e e n se rio u sly inju re d ,” is n o t en tirely ac c u ra te. M a j. O p . ¶ 4 . A t th e h e a rin g in c o u n ty c o u rt o n th e S tate ’s m o tio n to re in sta te N e lso n ’s a p p e a l, N el s on’ s att orney, V i ct orC arm ody, i nf or m ed the county courtthat , atthe t i m e of the
a rra ig n m e n t, ev e ry o n e w a s a w a re th a t th e re w e re “p o ten tial b u t un k n o w n inju rie s” as a re su lt
o f th e a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t. A c c o rd in g to C a rm o d y , h e h a d d isc u ss e d w ith th e R ich lan d c ity p ro se c u to r, G re g H a rp e r, th e p o ss ib ili ty o f m o re se rio u s c h a rg e s’ b e in g b ro u g h t ag a in st h is cl i entbeca us e of

thes e “pot ent i al i nj ur i es ” and thatC arm od y had w i s hed t o “handl e thi s as a D U I f i r s tof f ens e s peci f

i cal l y t o m i ni m i ze a ny pot ent i al cri m i nal l i abi l i ty and pr eventthe
c re a tio n o f fu rth e r c rim in a l li a b ili ty .” C a rm o d y a lso to ld th e c o u rt th a t H a rp e r h a d a g re e d to proceed on the m i sdem eano r D U I char ge an d al l ow N el son to app eal so t hat s he co uld “f i nis h herR . N . nur s i ng qual i f

i cat i ons . ” O n D ece m ber28, 2006, C arm ody r ece i ved a c al l f r om the
acc i dentvi ct i m s ’ att orney, butthi s w as notw hen he f i r s tdi s cover ed the i nj ur i es , as the
m aj or i ty s t at es . M aj . O p. ¶ 4.Tw o p eo plewere inj ure d in th e acc ident, and whi le th e rec ord

is clear that on e w as s eri ou sly 5 injured, the extent of the other victi m’s injuries is unc lear from the record. 

### 14 ¶27. H arper di d not di s put e that he w as pr es ent i n the R i chl and M uni ci pal C ou rt t he day N e lso n w a s a rr a ig n e d a n d fo u n d g u ilty o f d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e (D U I). W h ile h e d id notdeny C arm ody’ s ver s i on of event s , H arpert ol d the county courtthathe had “ no r eco l l e c t i on o f

k no w l e dg e o f

a ny i nj ur i e s ” o n the d a y of the a rr a i gn ment . H a rperdi d, how ever , r eca l l thatN el s on w as purs ui ng hernurs i ng l i cens e and acknow l edged thathe had
a g re e d to p ro s e c u te h e r o n th e m is d e m e a n o r c h a rg e . ¶ 2 8 . Ju d g e K e n t M c D a n iel, th e c o u n ty c o u rt ju d g e , se e m e d d isp lea se d w ith th e m a n n e r in
w h ich th e c a se h a d b e e n h a n d led , tellin g th e p ro se c u to r: A l l the i nf

or m at i on aboutt he natur e of the i nj ur i es and how bad thi s per s on[ ] 5 w a s h u rt, th a t th e y w e n t to th e h o sp ital in a n a m b u lan c e , I p re su m e , th a t w a s a ll avai l abl e t o the St at e. Y ou m ay nothave know n aboutit , b ut som ebody at Ri c h l a n d s h o u l d h a v e , a s I s a y , a wa k e n e d f r o m th e i rc o ma a n d s a i d , “ L i s t e n , we d o n ’t w a n t to p le a d th is a s a [D U I] f ir s t.” T h u s, th e ju d g e c o rre c tly o b se rv e d th a t, re g a rd les s o f H a rp e r’s p e rso n a l k n o w led g e , the C ity of R i chl and w as o n n o tic e th a t p o te n tia lly se ri o u s in ju ri e s h a d re s u lte d fr o m th e a c c id e n t. See State v. B lenden , 748 So. 2d 77, 86 ( M i s s . 1999) ( know l edge of governm ent al of

f i ceri m put ed t o pr os ecut i on) ( ci t i ng G i gli o v. U nited States , 405 U . S. 150, 153- 54, 92 S. C t . 763, 766, 31 L . E d . 2 d 1 0 4 (1 9 7 2 ); U

nite d State s v. Antone , 6 0 3 F . 2 d 5 6 6 , 5 6 9 (5th C ir . 1 9 7 9 )). H o w ev er, overthe def

endant ’ s obj ect i on, t he j udge r ei ns t at ed N el s on’ s appeal and al l ow ed t he or i gi nal char ge t o be nol l e pr os s ed by the pr os ecut or , r eas oni ng “thi s i s a ca s e thats houl d have be en p re s e n te d a s a [D U I] m a y h e m th a t n e v e r s h o u ld h a v e b e e n tr ie d b e lo w .” ¶2 9. T hi r t y- s even ye ar s ago, t he U ni t ed St at es Supr e me Cou r td e c l a r e d, “[ a] per s on

### 15

convi ct ed of

an of f ens e i s ent i t l ed t o pur s ue hi s s t atut ory r i ghtt o a tr i al de novo w i thout appr ehens i on thatthe St at e w i l l re t al i at e by s ubs t i tut i ng a more s er i ous char ge f orthe or i gi nal
o n e , th u s s u b

je c tin g h im to a s ig n if ic a n tly in c re a s e d p o te n tia l p e ri o d o f i n c a rc e ra tio n .” B lackledge , 41 7 U . S . at28 . T hu s, even i f the p rosecut or act s i n g oo d fai th, the D ue P rocess C l aus e of

the Four t eenth A m endmentpr ohi bi t s a St at e f r om “‘ uppi ng the ant e’ thr ough a fe lo n y in d ictm e n t w h e n e v e r a c o n v icte d m isd e m e a n a n t p u rsu e s h is s ta tu to ry a p p e llate
r emedy. ” I

d. T he Supr eme C ou rtn ote d that“[ t ] hi s w oul d cl ear l y be a di f f er entcas e i f

the S ta te h a d sh o w n th a t it w a s im p o s s ib le to p ro c e e d o n th e m o re se ri o u s c h a rg e a t th e o u ts e t.” I d. at29 n. 7 ( ci t i ng D iazv. U nited States , 2 2 3 U . S . 4 4 2 , 3 2 S . C t. 2 5 0 , 5 6 L . E d . 5 0 0 (19 1 2 )). O f cour s e, i n the pr es entcas e, the St at e w as on noti ce of f act s thatm ay have s uppor t ed an i ndi ctm entf

ora f el ony. T he def

endants houl d notbe pr ej udi ced be caus e the prosecut or in itia lly e le c te d to p u rs u e th e c a s e a s a m is d e m e a n o r. I d. a t 3 0 (“ H a v in g c h o se n o rig in a lly to p ro c e e d o n th e m isd e m e a n o r c h a rg e in [m u n icip a l co u rt] , th e [S tate ] w a s, u n d e r th e fa c ts of t hi s c a s e , s i mpl y p r e c l ud e d b y the D ue Pr oc e s s Cl a us e f r om ca l l i ng up on the r es pondent t o ans w ert o t he more s er i ous char ge i n [ ci r cui tcourt ] . ”) N ot abl y, a dec ade l at er , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tappl i ed B lackledge t o M i ssi ssi pp i ’s st atutory s cheme al l ow i ng cr i m i nal d e fe n d a n ts th e rig h t to a p p e a l d ire c tly a c o n v ictio n fro m ju stic e c o u rt o r m u n icip a l co u rt. T hi gpen , 4 6 8 U .S . 2 7 . ¶ 3 0 . P r o c e d u r a l l y , th i s c a s e i s d i f f e r e n tf r o m B lackl

edge and T

hi gpen i n that , i n those cases, felon y ind ictm en ts ha d b ee n b rou g h t w h il e the d efe n d an ts’ a p p ea ls w ere p en d ing . H o w ev er, thos e ca s es s t i l l ar e contr ol l i ng, and the i s s ue of due pr oces s i s r i pe f

orr evi ew r egar dl es s of th e e x iste n c e o f a fe lo n y in d ictm e n t. T h e p ro se c u tio n d o e s n o t en jo y u n b rid led d isc re tio n in

### 16

nol l e p ross i ng char ges and mustobt ai n the court ’ s cons ent . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 15- 53 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). “T h e re q u ire m e n t o f c o u rt a p p ro v a l fo r d ism iss a l o f a c rim in a l a c tio n ‘is p ri m aril y i n tend ed t o pro tect the d efe n d an t ag ains t p rose cu torial h a rassm en t. ’” State v. A da m s C o u n t

y Circuit Cou rt , 735 So. 2d 201, 205 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng U nite d State s v. Ha mm , 659 F. 2d 624, 628 ( 5th Ci r . 1981) ) . T hus , the St at e mustof f era l egi t i m at e bas i s f

or di s m i s s i ng a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, and the tr i al courtm us thave a “r easona ble bas i s ” f or g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g th e S ta te ’ s m o ti o n t o d is m is s . I d. T he onl y r eas on ci t ed by the pr os ecut ori n s uppor tof hi s m oti on t o r ei ns t at e N el s on’ s appea l and nol l e pr os the cha r ge agai ns therw as t o al l ow the i ndi ctm entof N el s on fora m or e se r i ous char ge. M or eover , the
o n ly b a sis c ited b y th e trial ju d g e fo r g ra n tin g the S tate ’s m o tio n w a s th a t “th a t n e v e r sh o u ld have bee n t r i ed bel ow . ” B eca us e due pr oces s of l aw pr ohi bi t s the St at e’ s i ns t i tut i ng gr eat er char ges f ol l ow i ng the def

endant ’ s exer ci s i ng hers t atut ory r i ghtt o appea l , the St at e di d not pr ovi de a l egi t i m at e bas i s f ornol l e pr os s i ng the cha r ge, and i tw as , ther ef or e, err ort o gr ant th e S ta te ’s m o tio n a n d n o lle p ro s th e c h a rg e o v e r t h e d e fe n d a n t’ s o b je c tio n . ¶3 1 . In m o st of the c ase s cit ed by th e m ajority , th e d efe n d an ts a ttem p ted to h a v e th e ir appea l s di s m i s s ed ei therdur i ng tr i al oron t he day of t r i al , and i n none of

thos e ca s es di d the
a d e fe n d a n t s e e k a d is m is s a l b a s e d o n th e p ro s e c u ti o n ’s th re a t o f g re a te r c h a rg e s . P ar ham
v. S ta te , 229 So. 2d 582 ( M i s s . 1969) ( di s m i s s al of appe al soughtt he day of tr i al and af

t erthe d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n fo r a c o n tin u a n c e w a s d e n ied ); P e e p les v. S ta te , 216 M i s s . 790, 801, 63 S o . 2 d 2 3 6 (1 9 5 3 ) (m o ti o n to d ism iss ap p ea l sou g h t at the b eg inn ing o f tr ial in circu itco u rt ); T h ig p e n v. S ta te , 206 M i s s . 87, 39 So. 2d 768 ( 1949) ( di s m i s s al of a ppeal s oughtthe day of trial a n d a fte r th e d e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n fo r a c o n tin u a n c e w a s d e n ied ); B a n gv. S ta te , 1 06 M i ss.T h e m a jo rity fin d s th a t O ’

R ourke and Ma

y o tt ar e “i napposi t e t o thi s cas e. T he 6 re a so n th e co u n ty co u rt se t as id e the o rd e r o f d ism iss a l an d re m a n d w a s n o t b e c a u se th e c ity had notcons ent ed t o t he or der . R ather , t he cour tsetasi de t he or derof di s m i s s al and r emand b e c a u s e th e c ity h a d n o t b e e n a ff o rd e d a n o p p o rt u n ity to r e s p o n d to th e m o tio n to d is m is s .” T h is is a d is tin c tio n w ith o u t a d if fe re n c e . 

### 17 824, 64 So. 734 ( 1914) ( m ot i on t o di s m i s s appea l s oughtaf t erthe St at e had pr es ent ed al l of its e v id e n c e ). T h u s, th o se c a se s a re c o n sis ten t w ith the p ra c tice in o th e r ju risd ictio n s th a t a d efe n d an t has a righ t to dism iss an ap p ea l f rom a low er c o u rtp ri o r t o the e m p an eli n g o f a jury
o r t o th e p ro d u c tio n o f e v id e n c e in a n a p p e lla te tria l. H ilb u rn v. City o

f G a rde n da le , 591 So. 2 d 8 , 1 2 (A la . 1 9 9 1 ). See a l so O ’ R ourke v. O ’

R ourke , 1 4 2 O k la 23 8 , 2 8 6 P . 3 4 1 , 3 4 3 (19 3 0 ); Ma y o tt v. K n o tt , 1 6 W y o . 1 0 8 , 9 2 P . 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 (19 0 7 ). 6 ¶32 . T he m aj ori ty als o cit es L e e v. S ta te , 357 So. 2d 111 ( M i s s . 1978) , and Fe rr e ll v. S ta te , 7 8 5 S o . 2 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 0 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ), fo r th e p ro p o sitio n tha t th e S tate h a s th e rig h t to o b ject to a d efe n d an t’ s m o ti o n to d ism iss h is or h er a p p ea l. H o w ev er, th e fo cu s o f L ee and Fe rr e ll i s on the d efen da n t’s ri ghtt o obj ectt o t he di s m i s s al of hi s or herappeal . A s m or e than
one s t at e s upr eme co urth as not ed, a s t atut ory s cheme “al l ow i ng f orde novo r el i t i gat i on of the char ge i s sol el y fort he benef i tand prot ect i on of the acc us ed. ” H il bu rn , 591 So. 2d at12 ( quot i ng State e

x r e l . G ar r e tt v. G ag ne , 5 3 1 S .W . 2 d 2 6 4 , 2 6 7 (M o . 1 9 7 5 )). T h u s, it log ica lly f ol l ow s thata cr i m i nal def endantw oul d have a r i ghtt o di s m i s s hi s orherappea l unt i l the day
o f t ri a l. See G a rr e tt , 531 S. W . 2d at267 ( “I n the norm al pr ocedur es i nvol vi ng pr os ecut i ons f orof f ens es agai ns ts oci ety, the l aw cus t om ar i l y does notf or ce a n appeal upon an ac cus ed. ”) ¶33. For the f

or egoi ng r eas ons , i t w as err or t o r ei ns t at e N el s on’ s appea l over herobj ect i on and to nol l e pr os the mi s demeanorchar ge of w hi ch s he al r eady ha d been c onvi ct ed.

### 18

A c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld re v e rse th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e circ u it c o u rt an d c o u n ty c o u rt a n d re in sta te the w ri t of pr ocede ndo . DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , AND KI NG, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. LA M AR, J . , J OI NS THI S OPI NI ON I N PART.