Best v. State

363 Ga.App. 345

870 S.E.2d 904

BEST

v.The STATE.

A22A0175

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 15, 2022

Larry Michael Johnson, for Appellant.

George E. Barnhill, Waycross, John Andrew Rumker, for Appellee.

Markle, Judge.

Following a jury trial, Stephon Maurice Best was convicted of armed robbery ( OCGA § 16-8-41(a) ). On appeal from the denial of his motion for new trial, Best contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Construed in favor of the verdict, Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the evidence shows the following: On January 24, 2019, Best, Jaquesia Mobley, Willie Bivens, and Ikhawn Presley were at Bivens's house when Best discussed robbing a store. Mobley then drove Best, Bivens, and Presley to find a store to rob. When they drove by Evan's Grocery, Bivens stated it appeared empty, so Mobley parked at the front of the store and went in to confirm that there were no patrons. Upon observing only one person in the store, Mobley moved the car to the back of the store, parking on a dirt road. Best and Presley then exited the vehicle while Mobley and Bivens remained in the car. Best was carrying a black gun with an extended clip.

Best and Presley entered the store and ordered the cashier to open the register and give them money, which she did. The cashier could not see either robbers’ face because they were wearing masks and she did not recognize them. Surveillance footage from Evan's Grocery depicted two masked men wearing hooded jackets entering the store. One was wearing white gloves and brandishing a black firearm with an extended clip in his left hand.

Upon exiting Evan's Grocery, Best and Presley returned to the car with Best still in possession of the firearm. Mobley then drove them back to Bivens's house, where Best remarked, "We did that." Mobley and Bivens were later each given about $100.¹ Police who investigated the robbery photographed shoe prints with a distinctive swirl pattern near the dirt road behind Evan's Grocery.

Two months later, Bivens, Best, Presley, and a fourth individual robbed an Enmarket Station, taking money and Newport cigarettes. Images from surveillance footage at Enmarket Station showed two masked robbers, one wearing camouflage gloves and wielding a black gun with an extended clip in his left hand. The cashier could not recognize or identify the robbers because of their facial coverings.

Bivens later told police that Best and Presley had robbed Enmarket Station. After learning of Best's involvement in that robbery, police obtained and executed a search warrant for his residence, which was a bedroom in his grandmother's house. Police found a pair of white, red, and gray Nike shoes with the same distinctive tread pattern as the print found outside Evan's Grocery. Police also found a black firearm with an extended clip, both white and camouflage gloves, and several packs of Newport cigarettes.

During an interview with police, Best waived his Miranda rights and signed a form indicating that waiver, using his left hand to sign. Best also admitted to owning a black gun with an extended clip. Best was charged with armed robbery, individually and as a party to the crime. At trial, the State presented testimony from Bivens and Mobley, both of whom testified to the events as previously summarized. Both store cashiers also testified to the events of the robberies and that they were unable to identify the perpetrators. The jury viewed surveillance footage from Evan's Grocery depicting the two masked robbers, one wielding a black firearm with an extended clip in his left hand, and video of Best's interview with police depicting Best signing a form with his left hand.² The State further presented testimony from police involved in the investigation of the two robberies, evidence including the firearm and shoes found in Best's room, and photographs of the shoe prints from the dirt road behind Evan's Grocery. Upon considering all the evidence, the jury convicted Best of armed robbery. Best filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied after a hearing. Best now appeals.

In related arguments, Best contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for armed robbery because the Evan's Grocery cashier was unable to identify him as one of the two masked men; the video-recording of the armed robbery failed to clearly depict either perpetrator's face; and the people in the getaway vehicle were only able to testify that Best exited the vehicle and entered the store. Best argues that his felony conviction rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. We disagree.

"When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) McDaniel v. State , 360 Ga. App. 194 (1), 860 S.E.2d 806 (2021). "[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and no longer presume the defendant is innocent. We do not weigh the evidence or decide the witnesses’ credibility but only determine if the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Rainey v. State , 338 Ga. App. 413, 413–414, 790 S.E.2d 106 (2016).

"A person commits the offense of armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensive weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon." OCGA § 16-8-41 (a). OCGA § 16-2-20 (a) and (b) (3) provide that every person who intentionally aids or abets in the commission of a crime may be charged and convicted of the crime.

Although generally the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact, when witnesses are accomplices with the accused, "the testimony of a single witness shall not be sufficient. Nevertheless, corroborating circumstances may dispense with the necessity for the testimony of a second witness...." OCGA § 24-14-8. Importantly, "only slight corroboration is required. The necessary corroboration may consist entirely of circumstantial evidence, and evidence of the defendant's conduct before and after the crime was committed may give rise to an inference that he participated in the crime." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Huff v. State , 300 Ga. 807, 809 (1), 796 S.E.2d 688 (2017) ; see also Raines v. State , 304 Ga. 582, 588 (2) (a), 820 S.E.2d 679 (2018). Indeed, as long as it at least leads to an inference of the defendant's guilt and is independent of any accomplice testimony, corroborating evidence does not have to be sufficient on its own to support a conviction. See Lewis v. State , 301 Ga. 759, 761 (1), 804 S.E.2d 82 (2017). Moreover, we have held that...