Derrick Coleman CC File
Derrick Coleman CC File
CITY OF JACKSON/
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, APPELLEE
Appellant, DERRICK COLEMAN, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant
to Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-1 et seq., Rule 29 of the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, and
related authority, hereby files this Emergency Motion to Set Appeal Bond. In support hereof,
1. In this proceeding, COLEMAN is appealing the final judgment entered on July 25,
2022, by the Honorable Judge Jeff Reynolds of the Municipal Court of the City of JACKSON, in
case number 22082852, wherein Appellant was convicted and sentenced on one count of violation
2. Following COLEMAN’S conviction in the Municipal Court, that court set the
bonds for his appeal. The cost bond was set at $2,500.00 and the appeal bond was set at
$250,000.00.
In all cases of conviction of a criminal offense against the laws of the state by the
judgment of a justice court, or by a municipal court, for the violation of an
ordinance thereof, an appeal may be taken within 40 days from the date of such
judgment of conviction to the county court of the county, in counties in which a
county court is in existence, or the circuit court of the county, in counties in which
a county court is not in existence, which shall stay the judgment appealed from.
Any person appealing a judgment of a justice court or a municipal court under this
section shall post bond for court costs relating to such appeal. The amount of such
bond shall be determined by the justice court judge or municipal judge, payable to
the state in an amount of not less than $100.00 nor more than $1,000.00. On
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 08/03/2022 Page 2 of 5
appearance of the appellant in the circuit court the case shall be tried anew and
disposed of as other cases pending therein. This Court has held where there is
conflict between a statute and a procedural rule created by the Supreme Court, the
rule controls and the statute is void and of no effect. Murray v. State, 870 So. 2d
1182, 1184 (Miss. 2004) (citations omitted).
4. Undersigned counsel communicated with the Municipal Court of JACKSON at the hearing
regarding the above statute and how the $250,000.00 appeal bond set in this matter was in
excess of the statutory maximum and severely deviates from the Bond Guidelines set out
in the Rules of Criminal Procedure which calls for $500 to $2,000.00 per charge.
Nevertheless, the Municipal Court denied the request to lower the appeal bond consistent
with the statute and recommended bond amount. Rule 8.2 embodies the guarantee against
excessive bail provided by article 3, section 29, of the Mississippi Constitution, within the
limitations stated therein. Rule 8.2 is based on the presumption of innocence of the accused,
bail, and the policy that a defendant should be released pending trial whenever possible.
Under section (a), a defendant charged with an offense that is bailable as a matter of right
is eligible for a personal recognizance release unless the judge determines that the
defendant’s presence would not be reasonably assured or that the defendant poses a real
and present danger of harm to others. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 107 S.
Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1986) (upholding the constitutionality of pretrial detention
based on dangerousness).
5. The Municipal Court cited Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 as its basis for
denying the request to lower bond. The Municipal Court stated that since that rule did not
mention a maximum appeal bond that it left the determination of the appeal bond purely to
2
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 08/03/2022 Page 3 of 5
the discretion of the lower court (in this case, the Municipal Court of JACKSON), and it
6. There is no conflict between Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-1 and Rule 29. Thus, the
7. In Mitchell v. Parker, 804 So.2d 1066 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001), the Court construed the
appeal bond statutes and URCCC 12.02. While the precise issue before that Court was not
the one at issue here, the case clearly shows that there is no conflict between Miss. Code
Ann. § 99-35-3 and Rule 29. The Court makes clear that the statutes and rules are to be
read to cooperate with one another. Only in the case of an actual conflict between a rule
Just what is procedure and what is within the legislative's authority need not be
decided here, as the Court has also held that it will consider statutory rules in a
"cooperative spirit" in an effort to provide for the "fair and efficient
administration of justice. . . ." Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71, 78 (Miss. 1975).
That cooperative spirit cautions us not to create conflicts between statutes and
rules when such conflicts are not reasonably apparent. The relevant statutes were
adopted first and [1061] the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules later. The
rules roughly replicate the approach of the statutes. However, HN8 if consistency
cannot be found, procedural "statutes which conflict with rules adopted by the
Court are void." Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993).
9. Here, there is no inconsistency between Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-1 and Rule 29. The
statute states that the lower court judge sets the appeal bond in an amount between $100.00
and $1000.00. The Rule states that the lower court judge sets the appeal bond, and makes
no reference to any minimum or maximum. Read cooperatively, the statute and rule
combine to have zero conflict: the lower court judge has the discretion to set the bond
between $100 (but not lower) and $1,000 (but not higher) per charge.
3
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 08/03/2022 Page 4 of 5
10. Accordingly, COLEMAN seeks an order from this Court that (a) sets aside the appeal bond
set at $250,000.00 by the Municipal Court of JACKSON and (b) sets an appeal bond within
the parameters of $100.00 and $1,000.00 as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-1. To
show good faith, Coleman has already posted a $1,000 bond with the Court.
11. Moreover, the Court clearly meant this bond as a punitive measure. Bond is meant to
secure the Appellant’s appearance not to punish him. This violates his rights under the
12. The Cost Bond is oppressive to the Appellant as well. The Hinds County Circuit Clerk’s
Office has the standard cost bond on a violation of protection order set at $283.50 when
13. COLEMAN has posted a $1000.00 bond and $283.50 for costs pursuant to the instructions
by the Circuit Clerk for is normally required in this matters. Appellant would state that
this is sufficient to secure appearance and Appellant should immediately be released from
jail.
order from this Court that (a) sets aside the appeal bond set at $250,000.00 by the Municipal
Court of JACKSON and (b) sets an appeal bond within the parameters of $100.00 and $1,000.00
as required by Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-3 or any other relief deemed necessary under the law.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 08/03/2022 Page 5 of 5
OF COUNSEL:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Damon R. Stevenson, attorney for Appellant, certify that I have this day filed this
Motion with the Clerk of this Court together and have served a copy of this Notice of Filing
indicated below to the following:
Damon R. Stevneson
5
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 1 Filed: 08/02/2022 Page 1 of 2
cause, who files this Notice of Appeal from a Final Judgment hereon rendered in the
1. A Final Judgement was entered on the July 25, 2022 wherein Defendant was
2. That this appeal is taken for a Trial De Novn, and Bond has been posted
herein.
3. That the file and record hereon, should be delivered to the Clerk of this
Court, within 10 (ten) days from the filing date hereon, containing the Appeal Bond taken,
a certified copy of the record herein, and all original papers in this case.
RES~~~~~~,
Damon R. Stevenson
Case: 25CO1:22-cr-00887-JM Document #: 1 Filed: 08/02/2022 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
this day delivered, by hand, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice to Keith Gates,
Damon R. Stevenson