Troy T. Redmond v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2003-CP-00627-COA
TROY T. REDMOND
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
APPELLEE
1/22/2003
HON. TOMIE T. GREEN
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
TROY T. REDMOND (PRO SE)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JANE L. MAPP
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AFFIRMED DISMISSAL OF STATE EMPLOYEE
FROM STATE SERVICE
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 09/06/2005
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., GRIFFIS AND BARNES, JJ.
BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Troy T. Redmond was discharged from employment with the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC) after twice hitting a hearing office in the head with a tape recorder. He appealed
his termination to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board (EAB) and then to the Hinds County Circuit
Court both of which affirmed his discharge. From an independent examination of the record, we find that
Redmond’s notice of appeal to the supreme court was not timely filed; therefore, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
¶2.
Troy T. Redmond was a correctional officer with the Central Mississippi Correctional Facility of
MDOC in Pearl. On March 16, 1999, prior to an administrative review hearing before hearing officer
David Fondren, Redmond and Fondren became involved in an altercation during which Redmond twice
hit Fondren in the head with a tape recorder. Both men filed assault charges against the other in justice
court. Redmond was found guilty of assault, and Fondren was found not guilty.
¶3.
Shortly thereafter, MDOC terminated Redmond’s employment. On appeal, both the EAB and the
Circuit Court of Hinds County upheld the termination, with the circuit court opinion and order being entered
on January 23, 2003. Pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, Redmond
had thirty days from entry of the order in which to file a notice of appeal. As the thirtieth day fell on
Saturday, February 22, and under Rule 26(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Redmond had until
Monday, February 24 (not a legal holiday) to file his notice. Redmond did not, however, file his notice of
appeal until Tuesday, February 25, 2003. Realizing his notice to be untimely, Redmond requested the
circuit court to allow him to file an out of time appeal. The circuit court subsequently denied the motion.
¶4.
“[T]imely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. . . .” Smith v. Parkerson Lumber, Inc., 890
So. 2d 832, 834 (¶12) (Miss. 2003). The time limits for perfecting an appeal are strictly enforced, and
filing the notice even one day late requires dismissal of the action. See Tandy Electronics, Inc. v.
Fletcher, 554 So. 2d 308, 310-11 (Miss. 1989). Although the trial court has authority, under Rule 4(g)
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal under certain
circumstances, we do not. Rule 2(c) provides that while the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals may
suspend other provisions of the rules for good cause, the appellate courts may not extend the time for taking
2
an appeal in civil cases. See also M.R.A.P. 26(b) (appellate court “will not enlarge the time for filing notice
of appeal or a petition for permission to appeal”). Consequently, Redmond’s failure to file his notice in a
timely manner or to secure an order of the circuit court extending the time for filing his notice of appeal,
leaves this Court without jurisdiction over the case.
¶5.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ALL COSTS ARE
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., IRVING, MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
