Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (2026)

Jurisdiction of court; issuance of decisions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The Court of Appeals shall have the power to determine or otherwise dispose of any appeal or other proceeding assigned to it by the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals is limited to those matters which have been assigned to it by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court shall prescribe rules for the assignment of matters to the Court of Appeals. These rules may provide for the selective assignment of individual cases and may provide for the assignment of cases according to subject matter or other general criteria. However, the Supreme Court shall retain appeals in cases imposing the death penalty, or cases involving utility rates, annexations, bond issues, election contests, or a statute held unconstitutional by the lower court.

(2) Decisions of the Court of Appeals are final and are not subject to review by the Supreme Court, except by writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court may grant certiorari review only by the affirmative vote of four (4) of its members. At any time before final decision by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may, by order, transfer to the Supreme Court any case pending before the Court of Appeals.

(3) The Court of Appeals shall have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition or any other process when this may be necessary in any case assigned to it by the Supreme Court.

(4) The Court of Appeals shall issue a decision in every case heard before the Court of Appeals within two hundred seventy (270) days after the final briefs have been filed with the court.

(5) The Supreme Court shall issue a decision in every case within its original jurisdiction, including all direct and post-conviction collateral relief appeals or applications in cases imposing the death penalty, within two hundred seventy (270) days after the final briefs have been filed with the court. The Supreme Court shall issue a decision in every case received on certiorari from the Court of Appeals within one hundred eighty (180) days after the final briefs have been filed with the court.

Laws, 1993, ch. 518, § 2, eff. 7/13/1993 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the enactment of this section); Laws, 1996, ch. 492, § 1; Laws, 1998, ch. 588, § 2, eff. 7/1/1998.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 43 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Cohen v. State, 732 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cohen v. State, 732 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1998). · cites it 9× “17(a) and Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (2) (Supp.1996) .”

McGriggs v. Montgomery, 710 So. 2d 886 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Supp. 1997). Therefore, Rule 5 does not and legally could not grant a litigant the right to petition this Court for an interlocutory appeal.”

Marshall v. State, 662 So. 2d 566 (Miss. 1995). · cites it 4× “Examination of the language of Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Supp. 1994) clearly indicates that the Court of Appeals is of the same character as the Supreme Court as both are appellate courts.”

Long v. McKinney, 897 So. 2d 160 (Miss. 2004). “§ 9-4-3 (Rev.2002), which purports to require the Court of Appeals to decide all cases before it within 270 days, and this Court to decide all cases before it on direct appeal within 270 days, and cases on certiorari within 180 days.”

JR LOGGING v. Halford, 765 So. 2d 580 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Though review by the Supreme Court of a decision of this Court is by a specific statute regarding writs of certiorari and not through more general appeal rules, the need for a final judgment still exists.”

Campbell v. State, 75 So. 3d 1160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See also Miss.Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Rev.2002). ¶ 9. Campbell was convicted and sentenced on July 20, 1990, but he waited almost nineteen years to fíle a PCR motion.”

Hill v. Mitchell, 818 So. 2d 1221 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Supp.2001). DISCUSSION 1.”

Collins v. State, 817 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Supp.2001). DISCUSSION 1.”

Dunaway v. State, 111 So. 3d 117 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The trial court denied the PCR motion because all of the issues raised by Dunaway, with the exception of his newly-discovered-evidenee argument, had been litigated previously or waived. With regard to the newly-discovered-evidence argument, the trial court found that Duna-way…”

Voyles v. State, 822 So. 2d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “During the pendency of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, Voyles obtained new counsel.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Eakins, 748 So. 2d 765 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 2× “" Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Supp.1999). The Supreme Court assigns cases to the Court of Appeals which "shall have the power to determine or otherwise dispose of any appeal or other proceeding assigned to it by the Supreme Court.”

Bradford v. State, 116 So. 3d 164 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “16; Miss.Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (Rev.2002)). ¶ 9. The circuit court dismissed Bradford’s PCR motion reasoning it was time-barred and barred as a successive writ.”

Show all 43 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3(1) — 8 cases

Cohen v. State, 732 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1998). “17(a) and Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (2) (Supp.1996) .”

Adcock v. Van Norman, 917 So. 2d 86 (Miss. 2005).

Saunders v. State, 733 So. 2d 325 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

Rowsey v. Lee (S.D. Miss. 2019).

Kelly (N.D. Miss. 2026).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3(2) — 3 cases

JR LOGGING v. Halford, 765 So. 2d 580 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). “Though review by the Supreme Court of a decision of this Court is by a specific statute regarding writs of certiorari and not through more general appeal rules, the need for a final judgment still exists.”

Cohen v. State, 732 So. 2d 867 (Miss. 1998). “17(a) and Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3 (2) (Supp.1996) .”

Skinner v. State, 700 So. 2d 1183 (Miss. 1997).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3(4) — 1 case

Linda K. Newton v. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mississippi (Miss. Ct. App. 2020).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3(5) — 1 case

McGruder v. State, 886 So. 2d 27 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 9-4-3(l) — 1 case

Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. v. Hawkins, 775 So. 2d 108 (Miss. 2000).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.