Opinion ID: 1090165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitution Must Be Obeyed.

Text: ¶ 47. The majority winces at any mention of the Constitution in this case. However, it provides no citation beyond Shelton for its blanket assertion that we cannot address the constitutionality of the statute of our own accord. Shelton itself provides no citation for that assertion, either, because that case involved a judgment for a creditor; on appeal, the record was missing a sworn itemized statement of appellant's account. Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss.1973). Shelton has nothing to do with whether this Court can address constitutional issues sua sponte, but rather deals with the instances when a record is complete. Id. Additionally, we have noted that Shelton is no longer good law for the proposition its stands for, as it was decided prior to the adoption of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure in 1995. . . . Norwood v. Extension of Boundaries of City of Itta Bena, 788 So.2d 747, 752 (Miss.2001). ¶ 48. Moreover, when circumstances warrant, this Court has knowingly gone outside the record. See Samuels v. Mladineo, 608 So.2d 1170, 1182 (Miss.1992). On motion for rehearing in Samuels, we acknowledged that we had gone outside the record and declared that we would do so again should circumstances warrant; indeed, we noted that [a]dditional authorities support our conclusion that what was done was neither novel nor beyond the scope of judicial function. Id. at 1186. ¶ 49. Beyond the mere black and white pages of the record, our own rules allow for the contemplation of other issues. Despite the majority's protests to the contrary, it is well established that this Court may review issues on its own motion when plain error is noted, since the court may, at its option, notice a plain error not identified or distinctly separate. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(3); see Gray v. State, 549 So.2d 1316, 1321 (Miss.1989) ( citing Johnson v. State, 452 So.2d 850, 853 (Miss. 1984); House v. State, 445 So.2d 815, 820 (Miss.1984); Hooten v. State, 427 So.2d 1388 (Miss.1983); Fondren v. State, 253 Miss. 241, 175 So.2d 628 (1965)). Plain error is an error which affects the substantive rights of the parties, in this case the constitutional right of access to court and equality between all parties. See Bryant v. State, 844 So.2d 1153, 1156 (Miss.2003) ( citing Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991)). This rule is used to prevent the manifest miscarriage of justice, despite failure to preserve the error. Id. (citing Johnson v. Fargo, 604 So.2d 306, 311 (Miss.1992)). ¶ 50. The concurrence discusses M.R.A.P. 44(c), arguing that notification to the Attorney General is required or a constitutional challenge must fail. However, the language of the rule itself and the Comment to that rule make it clear that this Court has the inherent power to address such a case, since Subsection (c) permits action to proceed in the case without notice by special order if the court determines that urgent action is necessary or that the challenged statute, order, or directive is so patently invalid that no response need be required from the affected body.  Comment, M.R.A.P. 44 (italics added). In my view, this is a arrow in the quiver of the Court which has been wholly abandoned, resulting in injustice to the parties and the citizenry of the State. Indeed, the issue of constitutionality of a statute is exactly the sort of jurisdiction as properly belongs to a court of appeals. Miss. Const. of 1890, art. 6, § 146. ¶ 51. It is imperative that we remain committed to the ideal that Constitutional provisions are generally construed to be mandatory or compulsory, and will not be considered advisory or directory merely unless it is plainly apparent that the adopters or framers so intended it. George H. Ethridge, Mississippi Constitutions, at 48 (1928). The inclusion of the rights of access to court in our Bill of Rights signifies that the framers of the Constitution of 1890 did not mean for those safeguards to be treated as callously as the majority does today. The Bill of Rights in our Constitution precedes the sections creating the authority of the Legislature; the body of the executive; or the powers of the judiciary, and as we have long held, these rights are more important than any statute. See Saxon, supra . ¶ 52. The Constitution is always in force and always applicable in the law. If a statute plainly clashes with a constitutional provision, we should not hesitate to invalidate it in order to safeguard the Constitution and the rights it vests in our citizenry. ¶ 53. Because I cannot join the majority's creation of a special class of defendants with special rights superior to those of other Mississippians, an act which is in direct contradiction with our state constitution, I must respectfully dissent. GRAVES, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.