If a Mississippi statute lets the police mail notice for unpaid traffic fines but a Supreme Court rule requires personal service, which one wins?

Plain-English summary

The City of Meridian's attorney asked a clean separation-of-powers question. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 63-1-53(1) authorizes the court to pursue collection of unpaid Title 63 (traffic) fines if the defendant has not paid within ninety days of notice by U.S. first-class mail. Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.6(d) requires personal service of a summons before issuing a warrant for the defendant's arrest in a fine-collection action. The two procedures conflict: the statute lets mailed notice trigger enforcement; the rule requires personal service.

The AG said the court rule controls.

The reasoning is constitutional. Mississippi's separation-of-powers doctrine, articulated in State v. Delaney, 52 So. 3d 348, 351 (Miss. 2011), holds that "it is within the inherent power of [the Mississippi Supreme] Court to promulgate procedural rules to govern judicial matters." When a statute conflicts with the Supreme Court's procedural rules, the rules control. Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183-84 (Miss. 1993), and State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2d 77, 88 (Miss. 1999), both confirm this.

The Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect July 1, 2017. The Supreme Court's adopting order in In re: Adoption of Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure (Dec. 15, 2016) recited that the rules govern "all criminal proceedings in the Circuit, County, Justice and Municipal Courts of this State." So Rule 26.6(d) applies in municipal court, including in a fine-collection setting.

The result: a Mississippi police department can mail notice of unpaid Title 63 fines under Section 63-1-53(1), but cannot obtain an arrest warrant for failure to pay without first having a summons personally served on the defendant under Rule 26.6(d). The defendant must be told about the hearing in person, get a chance to appear, and only then can a warrant issue if the defendant fails to appear.

What this means for you

For Mississippi municipal court judges

The opinion holds that Rule 26.6(d) controls over Section 63-1-53(1) where they conflict, so before an arrest warrant issues for failure to pay fines, the rule requires that a summons "shall be personally served on the defendant and shall set forth the time and location of the hearing," and only "[i]f the defendant fails to appear" may the court issue the warrant. Mailed notice under Section 63-1-53(1) is the statute's collection prerequisite; the opinion holds it is not a substitute for the personal service the rule requires before a warrant.

For city attorneys and prosecutors

Under the opinion, the procedural step of obtaining an arrest warrant for unpaid Title 63 fines is governed by Rule 26.6(d), not by the mailed-notice provision of Section 63-1-53(1). The opinion grounds this in State v. Delaney: "when a statute conflicts with this Court's rules regarding matters of judicial procedure, our rules control."

For police chiefs and collection officers

The opinion does not strip Section 63-1-53(1) of effect. It holds that the mailed-notice step remains the statute's prerequisite to pursuing collection, while the warrant step is governed by Rule 26.6(d)'s personal-service requirement. The two are sequential under the opinion: mailed notice as the collection prerequisite, personal service of a summons before any arrest warrant.

For criminal defendants in municipal court

Under the opinion, a mailed notice of unpaid Title 63 fines does not by itself authorize an arrest warrant. Rule 26.6(d) requires that a summons be personally served, setting the time and location of a hearing, and a warrant may issue only if the defendant fails to appear.

Common questions

Q: What is the underlying constitutional principle?
A: Mississippi's separation of powers gives the Supreme Court the "inherent power . . . to promulgate procedural rules to govern judicial matters." The opinion quotes Delaney and Blenden for this, citing Newell v. State (1975) and Miss. Const. art. 1, §§ 1, 2. When a statute conflicts with the Court's procedural rules, the rules control.

Q: Does Rule 26.6(d) apply in justice court too?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court's adopting order states the Rules of Criminal Procedure "shall govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the Circuit, County, Justice and Municipal Courts of this State."

Q: What does Rule 26.6(d) say exactly?
A: As quoted in the opinion: "A summons requiring the defendant's appearance shall be personally served on the defendant and shall set forth the time and location of the hearing. If the defendant fails to appear, the court may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest."

Q: Can the city use certified mail instead of personal service?
A: The rule requires the summons to be "personally served." The opinion treats mailed notice under Section 63-1-53(1) as the statute's collection prerequisite, not as the personal service the rule requires before a warrant.

Q: Does this apply only to traffic fines or to all unpaid fines?
A: Rule 26.6(d), as quoted in the opinion, governs an action "for failure to pay fines, restitution, and/or court costs." Section 63-1-53 is the Title 63 traffic-fine statute that prompted the question; the rule's personal-service requirement is stated in the broader fines/restitution/costs terms.

Q: How does a conflict between a statute and a court rule get resolved?
A: For procedural matters the opinion's answer is categorical: under Delaney, "when a statute conflicts with this Court's rules regarding matters of judicial procedure, our rules control." Here that means Rule 26.6(d) controls over Section 63-1-53(1).

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi's separation-of-powers doctrine is rooted in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 of the Mississippi Constitution. Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975), held that the Supreme Court has "inherent power" to promulgate procedural rules. State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2d 77 (Miss. 1999), and Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177 (Miss. 1993), reaffirmed that procedural rules trump conflicting statutes.

State v. Delaney, 52 So. 3d 348 (Miss. 2011), is the cleanest modern statement: "when a statute conflicts with this Court's rules regarding matters of judicial procedure, our rules control." The 2021 Simmons opinion applies that principle to a specific procedural collision.

The Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted December 15, 2016, effective July 1, 2017. Before then, Mississippi had a patchwork of court rules and procedural statutes. The MRCrP consolidated everything into a single rules set governing all criminal courts.

Rule 26.6 covers post-conviction monitoring and enforcement, including the procedure for handling defendants who fail to pay imposed fines, restitution, or costs. Subsection (d) is the personal-service requirement.

Section 63-1-53(1) predates the MRCrP. It sets a mailed-notice trigger as a prerequisite to pursuing collection of Title 63 fines. The opinion holds that once the MRCrP took effect, the procedural step of summoning a defendant and issuing an arrest warrant is governed by Rule 26.6(d).

The practical resolution after Simmons: the mailed-notice step under Section 63-1-53 still has substantive force as a collection prerequisite. The procedural step of obtaining a warrant requires Rule 26.6(d) personal service. The two are sequential, not alternatives.

Citations and references

Statute:
- Miss. Code Ann. § 63-1-53, collection of fines, fees, and assessments for Title 63 violations

Rule of court:
- Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.6(d), personal service of summons before arrest warrant for failure to pay

Cases:
- State v. Delaney, 52 So. 3d 348 (Miss. 2011), procedural rules trump conflicting statutes
- State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2d 77 (Miss. 1999), separation-of-powers and judicial procedure
- Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975), Mississippi Supreme Court's inherent rulemaking power
- Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177 (Miss. 1993), procedural-rule supremacy

Mississippi Constitution:
- Miss. Const. art. 1, §§ 1, 2 (separation of governmental powers)

Mississippi Supreme Court order:
- In re: Adoption of Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure, No. 89-R-99038-SCT (Miss. Dec. 15, 2016)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/W.Simmons-October-29-2021-Conflict-Between-Statute-and-Court-Rules.pdf

Original opinion text

October 29, 2021

William W. Simmons, Esq.
Attorney, City of Meridian
Post Office Drawer 5514
Meridian, Mississippi 39302

Re: Conflict Between Statute and Court Rules

Dear Mr. Simmons:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Question Presented

Is it permissible for the police department to issue a warrant or otherwise pursue collection of unpaid fines after providing written notice via U.S. mail, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 63-1-53(1), without personally serving a summons pursuant to Rule 26.6(d), Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure?

Brief Response

When a statute conflicts with a rule of criminal procedure adopted by the Mississippi Supreme Court, the rule controls. Accordingly, the procedural rule in Rule 26.6(d) would control over Section 63-1-53(1).

Applicable Law and Discussion

As you note in your request, Rule 26.6(d) requires personal service on a defendant in an action for failure to pay fines, restitution, and/or court costs, providing that "[a] summons requiring the defendant's appearance shall be personally served on the defendant and shall set forth the time and location of the hearing. If the defendant fails to appear, the court may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest." However, Section 63-1-53, applicable to fines, fees, and assessments for violations of Title 63, allows the court to pursue collection if, after ninety days after notice by U.S. first class mail, the defendant has not paid the entire amount of all fines, fees, and assessments.

In its December 15, 2016, en banc order adopting the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Mississippi Supreme Court said:

The Mississippi Constitution mandates certain procedural requirements in the criminal law of this State. And the Mississippi Legislature and this Court, acting on the respective authority vested in them by the Mississippi Constitution, have articulated additional procedural requirements. In order to promote justice, uniformity, and efficiency in our courts, we find it necessary and reasonable now to combine all of the requirements governing criminal procedure in the courts of this State into a singular set of rules. Therefore, pursuant to the inherent authority vested in this Court by the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, as discussed in Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975), we adopt the rules attached hereto as the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure, which shall govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the Circuit, County, Justice and Municipal Courts of this State. These rules shall take effect on July 1, 2017.

In re: Adoption of Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure, No. 89-R-99038-SCT (Miss. 2016) (emphasis added).

In State v. Delaney, the court said:

It is now well established that "the constitutional concept of separation of powers dictates that it is within the inherent power of this Court to promulgate procedural rules to govern judicial matters." State v. Blenden, 748 So. 2d 77, 88 (Miss. 1999) (citing Newell v. State, 308 So. 2d 71 (Miss. 1975)). See also Miss. Const. art. 1, §§ 1, 2 (providing for separation of governmental powers). Thus, when a statute conflicts with this Court's rules regarding matters of judicial procedure, our rules control. Stevens v. Lake, 615 So. 2d 1177, 1183–84 (Miss. 1993).

52 So. 3d 348, 351 (Miss. 2011) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the procedural rule in Rule 26.6(d) would control over Section 63-1-53(1). Thus, the defendant must be personally served pursuant to Rule 26.6(d).

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Phil Carter
Phil Carter
Special Assistant Attorney General