Opinion ID: 1106609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in failing to grant a hearing on appellant's special bill of exceptions.

Text: Appellant's trial was had at the January 1979 term of Circuit Court in Hancock County, which is a three-week term beginning the second Monday in January. The trial ended on January 27, 1979, with the jury verdict of guilty. The judgment and sentence of the court were entered on the same day. On that same day the appellant filed his motion for a new trial, stating only that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. On that same day, appellant filed a document entitled Motion in Forma Pauperis for a Free Trial Transcript. This motion was approved by the trial judge and filed on the same day. The court overruled the motion for new trial and entered an order allowing appellant's appeal without prepayment of costs and without the filing of a cost bond. By letter dated January 29, 1979, appellant's attorney notified the official court reporter to transcribe the testimony. For some reason this notice was not filed until March 12, 1979, but well within the appeal period. On September 2, 1980, appellant's attorney filed two affidavits dated August 28, 1980, stating that on June 26, 1979, they had delivered an instrument styled Special Bill of Exceptions to the office of the Circuit Clerk of Hancock County, Mississippi. This special bill of exceptions alleged certain irregularities in the conduct of the jury and the sequestration of the jury and asked for a hearing on this instrument by the trial court. It is obvious from the record that for some reason the docket did not show the instrument being filed on June 26, 1979, but it obviously was so filed, as in the record there is a letter dated June 29, 1979, from the trial court to appellant's attorney stating the following: Your motion for a new trial styled `Special Bill of Exceptions', a copy of which was enclosed with your letter of June 27, cannot be considered by the circuit court while the case is on appeal to the Supreme Court. An appeal divests the court of jurisdiction. There is no such thing as divided jurisdiction. It is obvious that the filing of the instrument on June 26, 1979, was after the appeal had been perfected to this Court and therefore the lower court was entirely correct in holding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the instrument filed. Denton v. Maples, 394 So.2d 895 (Miss. 1981); Edmonds v. Delta Democrat Publishing Co., 221 Miss. 785, 75 So.2d 73 (1954). It is therefore apparent that the third and final assignment of error is without merit. In the event appellant has merit in the allegations in his instrument filed, after the appeal was perfected, he has adequate recourse to present those contentions at the proper time and place. Going further from the specific assignments of error, we carefully have studied the entire record in this cause and can only come to the conclusion that the record shows evidence sufficient for the jury to have found appellant guilty of murdering Mrs. Ladner. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.