Dajuan Williams v. Town of Flora
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2008-KM-01129-COA
DAJUAN WILLIAMS
APPELLANT
v.
TOWN OF FLORA
APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
5/27/2008
HON. WILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III
MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
VANESSA J. JONES
WENDY MOORE SHELTON
PROSECUTOR, CITY OF FLORA: RONNIE
KIRK
CRIMINAL - MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE, FIRST OFFENSE, AND
SENTENCED TO SERVE FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
SHERIFF OF MADISON COUNTY;
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF
MARIJUANA IN A MOTOR VEHICLE AND
ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $500;
CONVICTED OF SIMPLE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND SENTENCED TO SERVE
THIRTY DAYS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
SHERIFF OF MADISON COUNTY
APPEAL DISMISSED - 7/21/2009
BEFORE LEE, P.J., ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
LEE, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶1.
DaJuan Williams was stopped by a police officer in Flora, Mississippi for a suspected
window-tint violation. After smelling marijuana and seeing smoke in the car, the police
officer searched the car and found a bag of marijuana under the hood. Williams was found
guilty by the Municipal Court of Flora of possession of marijuana and driving under the
influence (DUI). Williams appealed to the County Court of Madison County, which affirmed
his convictions.
¶2.
In a separate incident that occurred on a different date, Williams was charged with
simple domestic violence against LaToya Kidd. He was found guilty by the Municipal Court
of Flora of simple domestic violence, and the County Court of Madison County subsequently
affirmed his conviction.
¶3.
Williams appealed his convictions of possession of marijuana, DUI, and simple
domestic violence to the Circuit Court of Madison County.1
The three causes were
combined, and the circuit court affirmed all three convictions. Williams now appeals to this
Court.
¶4.
Williams asserts the following issues on appeal regarding the possession of marijuana
and DUI convictions: (1) his affidavit was materially flawed; (2) his motion to suppress was
erroneously denied because his vehicle was illegally searched; and (3) the verdict was against
the overwhelming weight of the evidence. As to the simple domestic violence conviction,
Williams asserts that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
1
Williams filed one notice of appeal for all three cases to the trial court, and the trial
court assigned the cases the following three cause numbers: 2007-0371-C (simple domestic
violence), 2007-0372-C (DUI), and 2007-0373-C (possession of marijuana in a motor
vehicle).
2
¶5.
Finding that the proper procedure was not followed for an appeal to this Court, we
dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
¶6.
Since Williams’s cases originated in municipal court, Williams’s appeal is governed
by Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-81 (Rev. 2002). Section 11-51-81 states, in
pertinent part, the following:
[T]here shall be no appeal from the circuit court to the supreme court of any
case civil or criminal which originated in a justice of the peace, municipal or
police court and was thence appealed to the county court and thence to the
circuit court unless in the determination of the case a constitutional question
be necessarily involved and then only upon the allowance of the appeal by the
circuit judge or by a judge of the supreme court.
“The presence of a constitutional question and the granting of an appeal by either the circuit
judge or a judge of the [s]upreme [c]ourt are both necessary ingredients for a viable appeal
to the [s]upreme [c]ourt.” Johnson v. State, 879 So. 2d 1057, 1060 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App.
2004) (quoting Davidson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Miss. 1992)).
¶7.
Williams’s case originated in municipal court, was tried de novo in county court, and
was then appealed to circuit court. Williams’s appeal to this Court was not accompanied by
the necessary formal allowance of either the circuit judge or a supreme court justice. Id.
Therefore, we find that Williams’s appeal is defective and that we lack jurisdiction to hear
this matter. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
¶8.
THIS APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
KING, C.J., MYERS, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, 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.