Ceola James
Non-Partisan | Mississippi
Candidate Profile
Leans Activist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Ceola James
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
General
Race
Supreme Court, Dist. 1, Place 3
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Mississippi College School of Law, Jackson. MS, Juris Doctorate
WORK & MILITARY
None, N/a, N/A
N.A, B/A
N/A, N/a
N/A
AFFILIATIONS
Mount Heroden Baptist Church - Lifetime member, Member of Board of Trustees - Chairman of Family Day Program, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sororiity
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Judge - Ninth District Chancery Judge (Warren, Sharkey, Issaqueana, Washington, Humphreys, and Sunflower Ccunties ) - I was seated in Washington County. Judge - Ninth district Chancery Judge (
- Judge - Mississippi Court of Appeals - Jackson, Mississippi
I was also twice appointed by the Mississippi Supreme Court to serve as a Special Chancery Judge in Scott and Rankin Counties.
Other appointments include Speciaial Master Judge in Chancery, Justice Court Judge and City Court Judge
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
OTHER INFORMATION
James filed a lawsuit against her 2016 opponent, Latrice Westbrooks, alleging that Westbrooks "violated state laws that require nonpartisan judicial race."
“My journey is a journey of faith and what God can do for you,” Judge James said. “My grandmother was a hard worker,” she said, recalling how her grandmother, as part of a farming family of all girls, had plowed with a mule. “What my grandmother taught me is that hard work does not hurt you, even if you are a girl.”
Quote from "The Daily Judge Archive - 01.06.2007 - 01.28.2007." The Daily Judge, www.thedailyjudge.com/id129.htm.
- "Ex-judge chided for representing litigant in case over which she presided." "'The Mississippi Supreme Court has ordered a public reprimand for former Chancellor Ceola James who violated court rules of conduct that bar a former judge from representing a party in case over which she previously presided....' James presided over a mother's petition for child protection, barring the father from unsupervised visits. Later, after leaving the bench and after the parties divorced, James tried to represent the mother in seeking modification of the divorce decree.
Dean v. Slade, 164 So. 3d 468 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) James authored the opinion.
Holding: The Court affirmed. The Court held (1) "that the chancellor did not err in finding that Dean’s Rule 60(b) motion was an improper attempt to relitigate this issue." [7] The court concluded that "this assignment of error is without merit." [7] The also held (2) that "with due diligence, Dean could have discovered [the] evidence prior to or during the trial" [8] and "If Dean could not have discovered this evidence before Slade’s testimony, Dean had the opportunity prior to the entry of the judgment to investigate the publication records." [8] Further the Court held (3) that Dean failed to meet the statutory requirements for adverse possession and thus "th[e] evidence [wa]s neither material nor [was] it such that a new trial would probably produce a new result." [8-9]
Background: Dean filed a complaint for adverse possession of approximately eighty acres of unimproved real estate near Vancleave. The case went to trial. The chancellor ruled that Dean failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Dean’s subsequent motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were denied, and his appeal was affirmed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals in Dean v. Slade, 63 So. 3d 1230 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). A motion for rehearing was also denied and the Mississippi Supreme Court denied Dean’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Dean then filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging improper ex parte communication and new evidence discovered after the trial. A hearing was held where the chancellor denied the motion. Dean’s motion for reconsideration and rehearing were also denied. Dean appealed.
Rules: "It is well established that a Rule 60(b) motion should be denied where it is merely an attempt to relitigate an issue." [6] "[A] Rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence will only be granted where: (1) the evidence was discovered following the trial; (2) due diligence on the part of the movant to discover the new evidence is shown or may be inferred; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a new result." [8] "For possession to be adverse it must be (1) under claim of ownership; (2) actual or hostile; (3) open, notorious, and visible; (4) continuous and uninterrupted for a period of ten years; (5) exclusive; and (6) peaceful.” Stringer v. Robinson, 760 So. 2d 6, 9 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)." [9]
- not a well written case
- why address jurisdiction? section was brief
- ex parte discussion not great
- new discovered evidence section NOT great
Wallace v. Greenville Pub. Sch. Dist., 142 So. 3d 1104 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). James authored the opinion.
Holding: The court affirmed the circuit court, holding that the statute of limitations on a claim for breach of contract under Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-1-49 had run and that the claim thus was time-barred. The court found "that Wallace knew or should have known of her potential claim on December 6, 2006, as evidenced by her letter of resignation, and not on December 31, 2006. Therefore, any breach-of-contract claim was required to be filed on or before December 6, 2009. Wallace filed her complaint on December 21, 2009; therefore, her claim [was] barred by the three-year statute of limitations." (5)
Background: Tonya Wallace worked for the GPSD. The case arose after, Wallace refused the principal’s request to alter student grades, finding the request unethical and illegal. “Wallace claims that, as result, the principal ‘set upon a course of conduct toward [Wallace] which ultimately lead [sic] to her being forced to resign or being terminated.’” (2) On December 6, 2006, Wallace resigned from GPSD effective December 31, 2006. Wallace filed a lawsuit against the GPSD on December 21, 2009, claiming a willful and malicious breach of her employment contract. She alleged that her refusal to engage in illegal activities led to wrongful termination. GPSD filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Wallace’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Wallace argued that her breach of contract claim was valid, as her resignation was effective December 31, 2006, and thus her December 21, 2009, complaint was filed within the three-year statute of limitations for breach of contract.
Rules: "'The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that “in the case of a breach of contract, the cause of action accrues at the time of the breach, regardless of the time when the damages from the breach occurred[.]”' Johnson v. Crisler, 156 Miss. 266, 125 So. 724, 724-25 (1930)" (4) "For instance, in Black v. Ansah, 876 So. 2d 395, 400 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), [the Court] found that a cause of action accrued at the time an employee was informed by her employer that her employment contract would not be renewed, not when her contract actually expired. In finding that the statute of limitations began to run when Black received notice, [the Court] stated that '[it] find no reason to conclude that a person with known and measurable harm that awaits solely the passage of time to inflict itself, may not sue because of that futurity until the time has passed.'" (5) The court thus concluded that Wallace knew of the breach when she resigned December 6th, 2006.
- not signs of activism
- conclusion accurate
- standard of review good
- included applicable law
- analysis could be better.
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Harris, 174 So. 3d 909 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) James authored the opinion.
Holding(s): The Court affirmed “the judgment of the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission (Comission). The Court held that the Commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and thus found no error its order. (13) The Court found that "[t]he Commission, which is the ultimate fact-finder in this case, undertook a thorough review of all of the medical evidence regarding the causal link between Harris’s initial lung injury and subsequent kidney condition." (11) The court found "no error in the Commission considering Harris' motion to compel medical treatment as a component of his original compensable lung injury" (11)
Background: The case arose after the "Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission order grant[ed] a claimant’s motion to compel payment of medical treatment relating to a kidney condition caused by medication taken for an admittedly compensable lung injury." (1) Previously, the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission amended [a prior] decision, awarding Harris permanent partial disability benefits and ordering BellSouth to continue covering reasonable medical treatments. BellSouth initially complied with this decision without appeal. During treatment, Harris was prescribed amphotericin B, which a doctor linked to kidney complications requiring additional medication. Harris sought payment for this kidney medication from BellSouth’s carrier, but the claim was denied, despite Harris's claim that the kidney issues were related to his original lung injury. The Commission later granted Harris’ motion to compel payments.
Rules: “’This Court employs a substantial-evidence standard of review to resolve a workers' compensation case; however, the standard of review is de novo when the issue is one of law[.]’ Forrest Gen. Hosp. v. Humphrey, 136 So. 3d 468, 471 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). ‘Absent an error of law, we must affirm the Commission's decision if there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision.’ Id. ‘[T]he Commission is the trier and finder of facts.’ Id.” (5) “‘When the primary injury is shown to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment, unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to claimant's own intentional conduct.’ Medart Div. of Jackes-Evans Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 344 So. 2d 141, 143 (Miss. 1977).” (6) “The Commission is the fact-finder and also the judge of witness credibility; appellate courts cannot reweigh the evidence and are thus highly deferential to the Commission's decisions. Short v. Wilson Meat House LLC, 36 So. 3d 1247, 1251 (¶23) (Miss. 2010).” (11)
- notes: relies on precedent but doesn't reference any part of 2020 Mississippi Code Title 71 - Labor and Industry Chapter 3 - Workers' Compensation General Provisions until after precedent. good: The Court is "highly deferential to the Commission's decision." not deferential to interpretation of law
Kyles v. State, 185 So. 3d 408 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). James authored the opinion.
Holding(s): The Court "affirm[ed] the trial’s court judgment dismissing the petition without an evidentiary hearing." [7] The Court "conclude[d] that Kyles ha[d] not made the required showing that his attorney’s conduct rendered his guilty plea involuntary." [7] Instead the Court found that "Kyles’s petition made bare assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel without supplying the Court with any supporting documents." [7] The Court held that "[b]are allegations are insufficient to prove ineffective assistance of counsel." [7] The Court reasoned that although the delay in bringing Kyles to trial was, on its face, presumptively violative of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial," [6] "that the defendant ha[d] a duty to provide 'more than conclusory allegations on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.' Carpenter v. State, 899 So. 2d 916, 921 (¶23) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005)." [6-7]
Background: "...Kyles was indicted for possession of marijuana and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer." [1] "...Kyles pled guilty to aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. " [1] "The trial court sentenced Kyles to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision." [1] Kyle filed petition to vacate his conviction arguing "his councel was ineffective becuase his attorney failed to advise him of the violaion of his constitutional right to a speedy trial before he entered a guilty plea to the charge." [2] 295 days passed between arrest and the guilty plea. The trial court dismissed his petition "on the merits, without evidentiary hearing." [6]
Rule(s): "Ineffective-assistance claims are governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). 'First, the convicted defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Second, the defendant must show there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'"[2-3] "Kyles must allege both prongs with specific detail. McCray v. State, 107 So. 3d 1042, 1045 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)." [3] "To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim, Kyles must show that there was a reasonable probability the speedy-trial claim would have succeeded. McVeay v. State, 754 So. 2d 486, 489 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)." [6] "To address the merits of a speedy-trial claim, this Court uses the balancing test announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972). The factors to be considered are: '(1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.'” [6] "The rule in Mississippi is that a delay of more than eight months (240 days) from arrest to trial is presumptively prejudicial under constitutional considerations. McVeay, 754 So. 2d at 489[.]" [6]
- thus concluded his allegations were insufficient to show ineffective assist. Barker, found that the defenants' 6th amend right speedy trial was presumptively violated because the 294 delay was presump. prejudicial (4th fact), but that the defendant didn't discuss the remaining 3 factors from
- "The factors to be considered are: '(1) length of delay; (2) reason for delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant.'" (6
- where does it require defendant to address/meet all four factors?
- "Our Court has found that the defendant has a duty to provide 'more than conclusory allegations on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.'" YET the court concluded that the delay was presumptively prejudiced and violated his 6th amendment right. Does the burden not shift to the state to explain delay? Does the defendant need to argue for the prosecution why the delay occurred?
Dodd v. Hines, 229 So. 3d 124 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), aff'd, 229 So. 3d 89 (Miss. 2017). Jaames concurred in en banc opinion.
Holding(s): The court reversed and remanded to the circuit court because “the circuit court’s decision did not reach whether or not the removal of her ovaries became necessary or emergent during the medical procedure that was consented to by Lacy, nor did the judgment address any other analysis of consent pertinent to theories of medical liability[.]” (13) The court concluded, “[b]ased upon the limited scope of the judgment and limited facts before us… that there are genuine issues as to material facts and that the moving parties [were] not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (13) The Court further held, “under the battery-based analysis of consent, Lacy did not give express consent for the removal of her ovaries and that the consent form signed by Lacy did not summarily provide consent to remove her ovaries.” (13)
Background: This case involved an appeal from a circuit court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Randall Hines, Reproductive Medicine PLLC (RM), and Dr. Paul Seago. The court's decision was based on the argument that Hines, RM, and Seago had Lacy Dodd’s consent to remove both of her ovaries. The consent was documented in a form signed by Lacy, which authorized the removal of ovarian cysts, the potential removal of one fallopian tube, and other procedures deemed necessary or emergent. During surgery, Hines discovered that Lacy’s ovaries appeared clinically cancerous and consulted Dr. Paul Seago, a gynecological cancer specialist. Both doctors concluded that removing both ovaries through a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was necessary for Lacy’s long-term health. A subsequent biopsy revealed that Lacy’s ovaries were not cancerous but contained non-cancerous cysts. Hines confirmed the findings with a Mayo Clinic doctor. Lacy later stated she would have preferred to explore other options to preserve her fertility, even if her ovaries had been cancerous.
- Note: Court applied assault and battery analysis instead of medical negligence based analysis. The Court said, "Mississippi has not directly addressed when it is appropriate to apply the battery-based analysis or the medical-negligence-based analysis." (6) The court found a medical-negligence-based standard did not apply as no expert testimony was provided. The court looked to outside jurisdictions and applied the assault and battery analysis.
- Note: the dissent would confirm. stated that Lacy presented “no expert testimony to dispute the summary-judgment evidence submitted by Hines, RM, and Seago that Hines and Seago consulted during Lacy’s surgery and determined, in their opinion, that removal of Lacy’s ovaries was necessary and/or emergent.” Characterizes the majority as “a declaration of public policy.”
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Caveat> Many of these questions would need to be researched before giving a good answer . This would mean reading the transcript of the case as well as the opinion and briefs in the case before making a decision or giving an answer . No answer is given here,
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Choose not to answer
Ending a human life at any stage is a serious issue for those who support biblical principles. This issue needs a lot of legal study. .Also, there are life threatening health issues that may involve a medical decision rather than a private choice.
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Agree
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Agree
I am aware that there are some religious practices that are unpopular in the United States, but religious liberty deserves to be protected according to the constitution.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
it is important to have spiritual beliefs and values. One of my favorite biblical verses is Proverbs 3: 5-6. " Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
It is important that children be raised properly and have discipline at an early age.. The bible teaches us to love everyone, but we are not supposed to disobey or change biblical laws. We need to be one nation under God, as we represent that we are so that we may have devine protection. Also, sometime the more a person is singled out and put in a certain class, the more he feels different.
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Neutral
All people need to be protected, but not necessarily singled out to be protected. How they are protected may vary with certain geographical areas. Sometimes, the more people are singled out to be protected, the more they are made to feel different. .
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
he human condition is in a very challenging stage. We are experiencing many conflicts regarding , the education of our children, birth, death rates, and sexual identity issues. 2 Chronicles:7:14 provides: “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will forgive their sin, and will heal thy land."
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Neutral
All people should be included in the American process rather than singled out and given a specified category. Abuse of power creates many issues, I try to make a difference by not abusing my authority. I try to serve as an example and bring peace to the workplace. that if someone gives me authority, I do not abuse it, but rather I try to serve as an example.
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
I am a lifetime member of Mount Heroden Baptist Church in Vicksburg, MS where I serve on the Board of Trustees . I am also the Chairman of the Family Day Program at my church.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
I believe I voted in all of the general elections, but as a non partisan candidate, I do not think it is proper to label myself.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No.
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No.
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
Constitutional - It is very important to read and study each case, and to follow the law when deciding the case.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
No particular name comes in mind. My reputation i that I work hard to study the facts and to be a fair judge, I
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
Yes. This relates to the First amendment. "....congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
Yes. This should be decided on a case by case basis.
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
This case gives an example of the state interfering with biblical laws and principles. A person as a n absolute to make provisions of their property and assets, but the changing of biblical laws was against the provisions of the first amendment that provides for the separation of church and state,When we attempt to alter biblical principles, we have to ask ourselves are we one nation under God. The court should have provided a remedy without interfering with biblical principles.
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
There should be no discrimination in hiring based on a person's gender.
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Agree
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
The judge would have to study and research the case. It is possible that the case may have been wrongfully decided, or that the validity of the statute may be called into question. These are only two examples.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
A judge should overturn a decision when there are errors of law. .An example would be a recent ruling by the United States Supreme court that alters or changes a decision or a prior judicial precedent. A constitutional amendment may also cause some changes . All changes in the law are not retroactive.,
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Never.
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
No
The changes should be made by amendments.
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
The Judge should make fair and sound judicial decisions based on the law..
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
I am known to be fair and to maintain my judicial independence If elected, I plan to continue to be fair..
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Agree
However, this right could be affected by the state's legitimate interest to control high crime. in certain areas.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
There should be checks and balances between the three branches of government, judicial, legislative, and executive. They all have authority, but each should realize their limitations and boundaries.
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
The court should consider the legitimate state interest when interfering with individual freedom if there is a public health concern.
