IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

vs. Cause No. 22-067524

NOAH MUTHANAL
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________

I. BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2022, after the trial of this cause related to the conditions of Defendant’s

property, the Hotel O, located at 4639 N. Highway 55, Jackson, Mississippi 39206 (the “Hotel”),

the Court issued an Order and Verdict finding Defendant Noah Muthanal guilty of violating six

International Property Maintenance Code (“IPMC”) ordinances adopted by the City of Jackson’s

Code of Ordinances, Art. XI, § 26-511.

Specifically, the Court found that the Hotel violated the IPMC by exhibiting:

1) Structural and foundation weaknesses;

2) Unsafe electrical wiring;

3) Improper mechanical systems;

4) Defective plumbing;

5) Damaged roofing;

6) Prevalent mold throughout the property;

7) The pool lacked water, rendering it an unenclosed, deep hole in the ground. The Court,

though an Amended Order and Verdict dated February 23, 2023, ordered Defendant to

properly erect a fence around the pool, after obtaining the City permit to do so, within

one week from February 23, 2023;

1
 8) Piles of trash and debris throughout the property;

9) Extension cords running in several Hotel areas, thereby creating a dangerous condition,

particularly since the extension cords contact with water in some areas.

The December 16, 2022 Order gave Defendant one hundred fifty (150) days to bring the

Hotel fully within compliance of all applicable City codes, to the reasonable satisfaction of the

City, and forty-five (45) days to complete the site-plan application process. Alternatively, the

Order gave Defendant one hundred fifty (150) days to demolish the Hotel to the reasonable

satisfaction of the City. The Order sentenced Defendant to imprisonment in the county jail for

ninety (90) days, suspended, conditioned on Defendant’s compliance with the Order.

The Defendant did not comply with the Court’s 45-day site-plan application deadline. The

Court, through an amended February 23, 2023 Order, gave Defendant another chance (over the

City’s objections). The February 23, 2023 Order gave Defendant: Seven (7) days to erect a fence

around the pool, after obtaining the City permit to do so; one hundred fifty (150) days, starting

February 23, 2023, to bring the Hotel fully into compliance with all applicable City codes, to the

reasonable satisfaction of the City, and; forty-five (45) days, starting February 23, 2023, to

complete the site-plan application process. Alternatively, the Court gave Defendant one hundred

fifty (150) days, starting February 23, 2023, to demolish the Hotel to the reasonable satisfaction

of the City. The Court also ordered that the City shall have unfettered access to the Hotel to inspect

it with no prior notice to Defendant.

The Defendant then failed to properly erect the fence around the pool, or obtain the City

permit to do so, within seven (7) days of February 23, 2023, as ordered by the Court. The Court

then incarcerated the Defendant. The Defendant reacted by firing his two private attorneys and

hiring two new ones.

2
 Since it had become clear that the Defendant was not going to comply with the Court’s

Orders to address the dangerous conditions at the Hotel, the Court released Defendant from jail

and, on March 17, 2023: (1) found the Hotel presents a present and immediate danger to the people

on and near the premises, and (2) gave Defendant sixty (60) days to both submit a plan to properly

demolish the Hotel down to the slab and actually demolish it. The March 17, 2023 Order set a Cost

Bond at $2,500.00 and a secured Appearance Bond at $275,000.00 (reduced from $1 million in

the December 16, 2022 Order).

Defendant again failed to comply. Instead, on April 17, 2023, Defendant tried to appeal

this Court’s order to the County Court of Hinds County by filing a Notice of Appeal and posting

the $2,500.00 Cost Bond. Defendant did not, however, post the Appearance Bond or file an

affidavit of indigency under Miss. Code § 99-35-7 to attempt to appeal in forma pauperis.

II. DEFENDANT’S APPEAL IS UNPERFECTED AND THUS UNTIMELY

Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.1(a) governs the process to perfect an appeal

from municipal to county court:

Any person adjudged guilty of a criminal offense by a justice or municipal court

may appeal to county court or, if there is no county court, to circuit court, by filing
simultaneously a written notice of appeal, and both a cost bond and an appearance
bond (or cash deposit), as provided in Rules 29.3(a) and 29.4(a), with the clerk of
the circuit court having jurisdiction within thirty (30) days of such judgment. This
written notice of appeal and posting of the cost bond and the appearance bond (or
cash deposit) perfects the appeal….

Because Defendant did not post the Appearance Bond or file an affidavit of indigency under

Miss. Code § 99-35-7 (as prescribed by Rule 29.4(a)), he never perfected his appeal, and the City

of Jackson moved to dismiss Defendant’s appeal as untimely. See City of Jackson v. Muthana, No.

22-cv-67524, County Court of Hinds County. Defendant responded that the Municipal Court

unreasonably set Appellant’s cost bond two and one-half times and the appearance
bond in an amount 275 times the amount permissible under Mississippi law. MISS.

3
 CODE ANN. §§ 99-35-1 and 99-35-3 (2020) limit the amounts municipal judges
may impose as cost and appearance bonds at $1,000.00 each.

Id., Dkt. 4, pp. 1-2. The Defendant is mistaken.

Cost Bonds are governed by Miss. R. Crim. P. 29.3(a):

Unless excused by the county or circuit court by the making of an affidavit of

poverty like that specified in Mississippi Code Section 99-35-7, every defendant
who appeals under this rule shall post a cash deposit, or bond with sufficient
resident sureties (or licensed guaranty companies) to be approved by the circuit
clerk, for all estimated court costs incurred both in the appellate and lower courts
(including, but not limited to, fees, court costs, and amounts imposed pursuant to
statute). The amount of such cash deposit or bond shall be determined by the judge
of the lower court, payable to the State in an amount of not less than One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Twenty-Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00). Upon
a bond forfeiture, the costs of the lower court shall be recovered after the costs of
the appellate court.

Appearance Bonds are governed by Miss. R. Crim. P. 29.4(a):

Unless excused by the county or circuit court by the making of an affidavit as

specified in Mississippi Code Section 99-35-7, a cash deposit, or bond with
sufficient resident sureties (or licensed guaranty companies) to be approved by the
circuit clerk, shall be given and conditioned on appearance before the county or
circuit court from day to day and term to term until the appeal is finally determined
or dismissed. The amount of such cash deposit or appearance bond shall be
determined by the judge of the lower court.

These Rules were adopted effective July 1, 2017.

The statutes Defendant relies on—Miss. Code §§ 99-35-1 and 99-35-3—were adopted

effective July 1, 1989, and July 1, 1988, respectively. And when a rule of criminal procedure

conflicts with a statute, the rule controls. For example, in Murray v. State, the court held that

“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.” 870 So. 2d 1182, 1184 (Miss. 2004); see also

Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183 (Miss. 1993) (“statutes which conflict with rules adopted

by the Court are void.”). This principle is reiterated more recently in Giles v. State, which cites the

comment to Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 1.1, stating that “when a statute conflicts

4
with the judicial procedure, our rules control.” 282 So. 3d 519, 528 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

Similarly, in Moran v. Necaise, the court held that when a rule conflicts with a statute, the rule will

supersede the statute. 437 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Miss. 1983); see also Trull v. State, 811 So. 2d 243,

247 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (“Our supreme court has the inherent power to adopt procedural rules

governing the trial process, and any statute that conflicts with a rule established by the court is

void….”); State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2d 77, 88 (Miss. 1999) (same); Strickland v. State, 784 So. 2d

957, 961 (Miss. 2001) (plurality) (same).

Consequently, §§ 99-35-1 and 99-35-3 do not cap the limits of Cost Bonds and Appearance

Bonds at $1,000.00. Instead, Rule 29.3(a) caps Cost Bonds at $2,500 and Rule 29.4(a) leaves the

amount of Appearance Bonds up to the trial judge’s discretion. And while Defendant’s attorney

now claims Cost Bonds are capped at $1,000 per Miss. Code §99-35-1, Defendant paid his $2,500

Cost Bond under Rule 29.3(a).

While Defendant now blames the Court’s $275,000 Appearance Bond for his failure to

perfect his appeal, claiming Defendant lacked “financial wherewithal” to pay the Appearance

Bond1 ([Dkt. 6, p. 2]), if Defendant were in fact indigent, he could have provided an affidavit of

indigency under Miss. Code § 99-35-7, which would have allowed him to pursue his appeal

without the need to file an Appearance Bond, subject to the following:

Any person who shall have been convicted of a criminal offense against the laws
of this state, by the judgment of a justice court, or by a municipal court for the
violation of an ordinance of the municipality, who by reason of his poverty is not
able to give bond as prescribed in Section 99-35-3, may nevertheless appeal from
such conviction on his making an affidavit that, by reason of his poverty, he is
unable to give bond or other security to obtain such appeal, but the appeal in
such case shall not operate as a supersedeas of the judgment, nor discharge the
appellant from custody, but the judgment shall be executed as if an appeal had
not been taken, unless the presiding judge of the appellate court shall, for good

1
The Court is skeptical that Defendant, who has retained a total of four private lawyers to
defend him, is indigent.
5
 reason, see fit to stay the execution of the judgment rendered by the court below by
ordering the release of the defendant on his own recognizance, and this shall not
affect the trial of the case anew in the appellate court.

Miss. Code § 99-35-7 (emphasis added); see URCCC 5.04 and 5.09.

Defendant could have thus timely filed an affidavit of indigency with his Notice of Appeal,

which would have preserved his right to appeal, then sought to proceed in forma pauperis in the

County Court, or sought a reduced Appearance Bond from the County Court. But Defendant has

never provided an affidavit—to this Court or the County Court—testifying to his alleged

indigency. And even if the Defendant had provided an affidavit of indigency, such an appeal would

not serve to stay this Court’s Order and Verdict until the Defendant paid the $275,000 Appearance

Bond (which Defendant, had he perfected his appeal, could have asked the County Court to reduce

or eliminate). See Miss. Code § 99-35-7.

Regardless, Section 99-35-3—to the extent any of it survives passage of Rule 29.4(a)—

provides that the amount of an Appearance Bond is

determined by the justice court judge or municipal judge in reference to the grade
of the offense as indicated by the judgment and ability of the appellant to give bond,
conditioned to appear before the appellate court at the next term after such appeal
shall be taken, to answer to the charge against him, and so to continue until
discharged. On default of defendant a forfeiture shall be entered against him and
his sureties.

The Court did set bond “in reference to the grade of the offense as indicated in the

judgment.” The Court, along with finding the Hotel a danger to the citizens of Jackson, found

credible Ms. Dotson’s testimony that a conservative figure to bring the Hotel within
compliance of all applicable Codes would be one million two hundred sixty-five
thousand dollars ($1,265,000.00). Further, the court finds credible the testimony of
Officer Brunson, who testified that it would cost over $200,000.00 to demolish the
Hotel down to the slab.

December 16, 2022 Order, pp. 3-4.

6
 The Appearance Bond is $275,000, which is merely twenty-two percent (22%) of the

estimated costs of refurbishing the Hotel to code, and merely 1.37 times the cost to demolish the

Hotel per City code if the low-end estimate of $200,000 is used. Were it lower, Defendant, who

has established his unwillingness to remedy this dangerous blight on the City, would be

incentivized to flee rather than undertake the expensive work of refurbishing or demolishing the

Hotel, which he allowed to fall into a condemnable state, then ignored repeated court orders to

remedy.

Finally, had Defendant actually lacked financial wherewithal as his attorney now claims

(but the Defendant doesn’t, under oath) and lacked “ability to give bond,” he should have filed an

affidavit of indigency under § 99-35-7, as prescribed by Rule 29.4(a), timely appealed to the

County Court, sought a reduced Appearance Bond before that court, and then posted whatever

Appearance Bond, if any, the County Judge ordered. The Court will not abide Defendant’s

attempts to foist blame on the Court for his failures to perfect his appeal, which he could have done

by simply following the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court ORDERS that:

1) Its Orders, as amended, are not stayed because Defendant has not perfected his

appeal. He has not posted his Appearance Bond or filed an affidavit of alleged

indigency under Miss. Code § 99-35-7—as provided by Rule 29.4(a)—and sought to

proceed in forma pauperis;

2) The Hotel is hereby condemned because of the pervasive dangers cited above and

in the Court’s December 16, 2022 and March 17, 2023 Orders, adopted and restated

7
 here, which demonstrate that the Hotel is a clear and present danger to the citizens of

Jackson;

3) The Defendant has ten days to completely vacate the Hotel premises, remove all

persons squatting or otherwise residing there, and retrieve anything of value he may

want;

4) The City of Jackson, upon the expiration of Defendant’s above ten-day period, is

hereby ORDERED to remove any persons remaining on the Hotel premises by all legal

means possible, including arrest if they resist and defy lawful commands of the Jackson

Police Officers, then demolish the Hotel, forthwith, and place a lien on the Hotel’s real

property for all fees, costs, and expenses incurred during all phases of the City’s

demolition; and

5) Defendant’s Cost Bond remains set at $2,500.00 and his secured Appearance Bond

remains set at $275,000.00.

SO ORDERED, this 26th day of July 2023.

______________________________
JEFFERY P. REYNOLDS
MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE

8
 Case: 25CO1:23-cr-00554-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023 Page 1 of 5

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

v. CIVIL CAUSE NO: 22-067524

NOAH MUTHANA

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO CITY OF JACKSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COME NOW, Appellant Noah Muthana and files this, his Response in Opposition to

Appellee The City of Jackson, Mississippi’s Motion to Dismiss the instant appeal. On April 17,

2023, Appellant timely filed in this Court his notice of appeal to the County Court of Hinds County,

Mississippi from and of the March 17, 2023 Amended Order and Verdict (“the Order”) entered in

this case by the Municipal Court of the City of Jackson, Mississippi. (See Exhibit “A”). The Order

found Appellant guilty of misdemeanor violations. See id. It also required Appellant to pay a cost

bond in the amount of $2,500.00 and a secured appearance bond in the amount of $275,000.00 in

order for Appellant to perfect his appeal. At the time Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal in this

Court, he paid in full the $2,500.00 cost bond, but did not pay the $275,000.00 secured appearance

bond. The City now seeks to have this Court find that Appellant failed to perfect his appeal

because the appearance bond was not paid, but this Court should deny their motion because the

cost bond and appearance bond the Municipal Court judge set for the Appellant contravene the

law; violate the Excessive Punishments Clauses of 8th Amendments to the United States

Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi; and were arbitrary, capricious, and

unduly oppressive.

The Municipal Court’s Order unreasonably set Appellant’s cost bond two and one-half

times and the appearance bond in an amount 275 times the amount permissible under Mississippi

law. MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 99-35-1 and 99-35-3 (2020) limit the amounts municipal judges may
 Case: 25CO1:23-cr-00554-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023 Page 2 of 5

impose as cost and appearance bonds at $1,000.00 each. With respect to cost bonds, Section 99-

35-1 states, in pertinent part, that “such bond shall be determined by […] the municipal judge,

payable to the state in an amount of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one

thousand dollars ($1,000.00).” MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-35-1. Section 99-35-3 states similarly

that appearance bonds must be imposed within the same dollar range. See MISS. CODE ANN. §

99-35-3. Moreover, Section 99-35-3 requires the Court to set the bond within the $100.00 to

$1,000.00 range by considering not only the grade of the offense committed, but the ability of the

appellant to pay the bond. See id. Of course, that second requirement is to ensure the appearance

bond takes into account the financial wherewithal of the defendant and does not become a

constitutionally impermissible requirement to “pay or stay,” a practice for which the City of

Jackson has already been held to account before our courts. The Municipal Judge who entered the

subject Order failed to take Appellants ability to pay into account set the bond based on some

figures he held would be the cost to demolish a multi-unit hotel building that was the subject of

the underlying municipal litigation. His Order actually states as much in its last paragraph setting

the appearance bond.

The City’s Motion to Dismiss essentially relies on two citations to law. The City first

points to Miss. R. Crim. P. 29.1, which states that at the time an appellant from municipal court

files a notice of appeal to circuit or county court, that defendant must also pay a cost bond and an

appearance bond. See Miss. R. Crim. P. 29.1. The City then cites Ray v. State, 124 So. 3d 80 (Miss.

Ct. App. 2013) in support of its claim that Appellant’s appeal should be dismissed. See Ray v.

State, 124 So. 3d 80 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013). The City’s logic on these points is flawed. Of course,

Rule 29.1 and Ray v. State presuppose that the cost bond and appearance bonds required to perfect

an appeal are lawful. Neither Rule 29.1 nor Ray permit any municipal court to set any bond
 Case: 25CO1:23-cr-00554-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023 Page 3 of 5

multiple times the amount permissible under Sections 99-35-1 and 99-35-3. In Ray, the municipal

court cost and appearance bonds the Ray appellant was required to satisfy to perfect his appeal

were both between $100.00 and $1,000.00—both bond amounts combined being less than $300.00.

The defendant in Ray could, thus, make no claim that the bonds the lower court had set contravened

Mississippi statutory law. The instant case is altogether different. By setting Appellant Muthana’s

cost bond at $2,500.00 and his appeal bond at $275,000.00, the municipal court well exceeded his

statutory authority. There is no precedent in Mississippi jurisprudence that would permit any

municipal judge to impose such an arbitrary and capricious set of bonds on a misdemeanor

defendant. Furthermore, with respect to the exorbitant appearance bond the lower court’s Order

set, it wholly failed to consider the factors, including Appellant Muthana’s financial wherewithal,

that Section 99-35-3 mandates the court weigh.

Appellant further states that the cost and appearance bonds the municipal court imposed

on him violate his rights to be free from excessive fines, penalties, and punishments. To require

him to pay nearly $300,000.00, many times more than Mississippi law even authorizes a municipal

judge to require as appeal bonds, for a misdemeanor offense would be so highly excessive and

unusual that the City’s motion should be denied and that portion of the municipal court’s Order to

be vacated.
 Case: 25CO1:23-cr-00554-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023 Page 4 of 5

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant Muthana respectfully requests this Court deny the

City’s Motion to Dismiss.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, on this, the 16th day of June, 2023.

NOAH MUTHANAL

By: _/s/ E. Carlos Tanner, III, Esq. _____________

E. CARLOS TANNER, III, Esq.

E CARLOS TANNER, III

TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Mississippi Bar No. 102713
P.O. Box 3709
Jackson, Mississippi 39207
(601) 460-1745 Telephone
(662) 796 3509 Facsimile
Carlos.Tanner@thetannerlaw.com
 Case: 25CO1:23-cr-00554-JM Document #: 4 Filed: 06/16/2023 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, E. Carlos Tanner, III, hereby certify on this date, June 16, 2023, that a true and accurate

copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal was conventionally filed and that a copy of the same was

sent by the United States Mail to all counsel of record in this matter.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, on this, the 16th day of June, 2023.

NOAH MUTHANAL
THE ACCUSED

By:__/s/ E. Carlos Tanner, III, Esq. ____________

E. CARLOS TANNER, III, ESQ.
TANNER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
Mississippi Bar No. 102713
P.O. Box 3709
Jackson, Mississippi 39207
(601) 460-1745 Telephone
(662) 796-3509 Facsimile
Carlos.Tanner@thetannerlawfirm.com