Opinion ID: 1859052
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: if the record lacks substantial evidence to support jones' petition, may the psc base its ruling on extrinsic facts?

Text: Jones contends that the circuit court would have erred in reversing the PSC's Order even if the record did not contain substantial evidence. According to Jones, the PSC should be allowed to base its decision on any and all information, regardless of its source. Jones cites Miss. Code Ann. § 77-7-45 in support of its position. Section 77-7-45 provides that [i]n determining whether the Certificate shall be granted, the Commission shall, among other things, give due consideration to the present transportation facilities... . (emphasis added). The among other things clause, Jones maintains, entitles the PSC to consider evidence presented at the previous two Jones hearings along with matters personally known to the Commissioners by virtue of their acquaintance with the carrier industry. We choose not to confront this issue directly, having held that the PSC's Order is undergirded by substantial evidence appearing in the record. The protesting carriers, however, have launched a counterattack based on this assignment of error which merits discussion. By considering facts outside the record, the protesting carriers contend, the PSC violated their constitutional and statutory rights. They cite Mississippi-Alabama State Fair, 222 So.2d at 665, which holds that an administrative order may be reversed if it violate[s] some statutory or constitutional right of the complaining party. Id. at 665. If the PSC did in fact base its order on extrinsic evidence, then the protesting carriers might have a point. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the PSC based its findings on anything other than evidence offered at the hearing below. Neither the hearing transcript nor the Commission's Order makes any reference to matters outside the record. The protesting carriers cannot shore up circuit court's reversal by imputing speculative error to the Commission's decision. According to Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss. 1973): [The appellate court] may not act upon or consider matters which do not appear in the record and must confine itself to what actually does appear in the record. It must be presumed that the rulings of trial court were correct, and such presumption will prevail unless the actual record supports the contrary view. In the absence of some indication in the record that the PSC based its findings on extrinsic facts, we must presume that the Order is supported by the substantial evidence offered at the hearing below.