A Mississippi Supreme Court judge recently ordered that a motion in favor of former Greenville Police Chief Delando Wilson and that the opposing party – the city of Greenville – be subject to possible action disciplinary and sanctions.
Wilson’s legal advisor, lawyer Renetha Frieson, has filed a motion for disclosure of material misrepresentation in court and, in the alternative, a motion for disciplinary action, penalties and to expedite the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Mississippi from the State of Mississippi on December 2 – just a day after lawyer Willie Griffin filed the appellant’s factum on behalf of the City of Greenville.
Among the alleged “misrepresentations” in Wilson’s motion, Griffin was among attorneys on record for the City of Greenville well ahead of the time documented in a motion he filed to seek an extension of time for the submission of the bill. appellant’s brief.
The order of December 14, 2021 issued by the Hon. James Kitchens, president of justice in the case, said: âWilson claims that the town of Greenville made various false statements in its brief and in a motion for an extension of time filed previously. Among other things, Wilson is asking the court to sanction the City of Greenville for such false statements.
Wilson’s petition was considered and considered by a panel of Mississippi Supreme Court justices, which held that some of the issues raised in Wilson’s petition should be “considered on the merits of the appeal.”
However, Wilson’s request to expedite the appeal was denied.
In March, Wilson appealed the final judgment of the Washington County Circuit Court, dismissing his motion for a preliminary injunction and his petition for reconsideration or his post-trial motion to vary or vary the judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada. Mississippi.
Frieson said at the time that she believed the judgment would be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Order of the Hon. Margaret Carey-McCray said: âAfter reconsidering its February 12, 2021 decision and applicable law as requested by Wilson’s motion, the Court finds that the facts and the law in this case support its original decision. Miss Code Ann. 11-51-75 (Rev. 2018) offers Wilson an adequate remedy exclusively at law. He failed to prepare an appeal within the ten (10) days required to confer jurisdiction on the circuit court. This Court does not have the power to rule on the merits of this case.
Frieson said on the jurisdictional issue with respect to the ruling: “We believe the law reads differently depending on the precedent in this state – the interpretation needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court because the way it was interpreted here in the lower court, in the opinion of this office, is not how the Supreme Court interpreted it.
For such clarity, Frieson appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
“And, if this office is right, which we think is about the interpretation of the law, the case will come back to the merits,” she added.
Wilson maintains that he was not fired and that he did not resign.
Frieson’s motion on Wilson’s behalf included claims that Griffin had been the attorney of record from the start of the case, even though Griffin filed a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal in October in due to the impending retirement of the city attorney, Andy Alexander, and filed a notice of meeting on October 6, 2021.
Wilson’s motion pointed out that the appellant’s factum was originally due on October 29, 2021 and four days before, Griffin filed a motion for an extension of the time limit for filing the factum, which was described as “misleading and was calculated. and submitted for the purpose of delaying and sabotaging Mr. Wilson’s appeal.
The motion stated in part: “There is no order of the council appointing prosecutor Griffin during the months of September 2021 or October 2021 because he was already a lawyer of record” and alleged that Griffin and Wilson’s legal advisor had been informed in early 2021 by Alexander of his resignation.
In addition, Wilson’s motion alleged that Griffin had been appointed legal counsel by the City as of March 4, 2021 and was therefore “aware, as counsel of record, of all the facts forming the basis of this appeal.” , referring to Griffin’s decision. âAppellant’s Representation Letterâ, dated March 4, 2021, regarding Wilson v. City of Greenville, Mississippi; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Charge No .: 423-2021-00444.
Griffin wrote to inform the EEOC that he had been selected to represent the City of Greenville in and out of Alexander’s place in the EEOC charge and that he would need some access to allow his office to file a response to the charge.
Wilson’s motion also claimed Griffin had distorted the expiration of his legal contract with the city in an attempt to mislead the court.
âSpecifically, attorney Griffin told this Honorable Court in the appellant’s factum on December 1, 2021 that the case would become moot as of January 4, 2021. Attorney Griffin’s representation in court at this regard is wrong. Mr. Wilson was appointed Chief of Police on February 20, 2018 for two years; whereby his appointment would not expire until every second following year, February 20, âthe motion further stated. âAs such, Mr. Wilson’s appointment did not expire until February 20, 2020; while he was reappointed as Chief in February 2020. It follows that Mr. Wilson’s current contract with the Appellate does not expire until February 20, 2022.
Thereupon, from the court, Wilson sought disciplinary action and penalties against Griffin and the city as set out in his motion, striking out of the appellant’s factum being one of them.