Holder v. State

348 So.3d 370

Alex Jeremiah HOLDER a/k/a Alex Holder, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2021-KA-01016-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

October 4, 2022

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ZAKIA HELEN ANNYCE BUTLER

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CASEY BONNER FARMER

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND SMITH, JJ.

SMITH, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Forrest County Circuit Court jury convicted Alex Holder of burglary of a dwelling (Count I) and felon in possession of a firearm (Count II). Following the jury's verdict, the Forrest County Circuit Court sentenced Holder to twenty-five years for Count I and ten years for Count II, with both sentences ordered to be served concurrently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Holder filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. Both were denied. On appeal, Holder argues the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for burglary of a dwelling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On April 19, 2020, Adrian Hinton called the Forrest County Sheriff's Office to report an alleged burglary at 48 Brantley Drive in Rawls Springs, a small community north of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, where Hinton resided with his girlfriend Adriana Thigpen, who is Alex Holder's cousin. A deputy with the sheriff's office was dispatched to Hinton's residence and took Hinton's statement. Hinton reported to the deputy that both he and Thigpen had left the residence that morning, and when he returned, he found his side door open and a shotgun missing. The deputy filed the report and informed Hinton that an investigator with the sheriff's office would follow up.

¶3. The next day, on April 20, 2020, Investigator Keith Leroy contacted Hinton by phone. Hinton explained that on the day of the burglary, Holder had called multiple times from an unknown number saying that he was in Rawls Springs and wanted to come by Hinton and Thigpen's residence. Hinton told Holder no and that he was not allowed at their residence. But after receiving Holder's calls, Hinton rushed back to the residence because he believed Holder was already there despite being told he was not allowed. Hinton then arrived home and discovered the open door and missing gun. He provided Investigator Leroy with the contact information for the phone Holder had used to make the calls to Hinton. Investigator Leroy then called the number for the phone Holder had used, and a person named Charlotte Hill answered.

¶4. Charlotte Hill gave a statement to Investigator Leroy regarding her connection to Holder and allowing him to use her phone on the day of the burglary. At trial, Hill testified that on April 19, 2020, she had provided transportation to Holder. She gave Holder a ride to Rawls Springs with the understanding that she would be dropping off Holder at his cousin's house. When Hill stopped to drop off Holder at a house in Rawls Springs, Holder told Hill to wait a minute. Holder said he had to see if his cousin was home and used Hill's phone to make a call. He proceeded to get out of Hill's car, walk toward the house near where they stopped, and then get back in Hill's car with a gun; then Holder told Hill he wanted to be dropped off somewhere else. Hill drove off, and while stopped at a stop sign along their subsequent route, Holder threw the gun he had obtained and his suitcase into the woods. Hill ultimately dropped off Holder at a truck stop. At trial, Hill identified Holder as the person to whom she gave a ride to the house in Rawls Springs on the day in question who then returned to her vehicle with a long gun.

¶5. Investigator Leroy testified that after speaking with Hinton and Hill, he identified Holder as the suspect of the investigation for the burglary of Hinton's residence. Investigator Leroy and another investigator went to the location Hill said she saw Holder dispose of the gun and tried to find it. However, the investigators were never able to find the gun Holder disposed of in the woods.

¶6. Holder was indicted for one count of burglary of a dwelling and one count of felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, after the State's case-in-chief that included testimony from Hinton, Hill, Thigpen, and Investigator Leroy, Holder moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State failed to prove all the elements required for burglary of a dwelling. The trial court denied his motion, and after deliberating, the jury convicted Holder of both burglary of a dwelling and felon in possession of a firearm. Holder was sentenced to twenty-five years for burglary of a dwelling and ten years for felon in possession of a firearm, with both sentences ordered to be served concurrently in MDOC's custody. Thereafter, Holder filed an unsuccessful motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. Aggrieved, he appeals, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was guilty of burglary of a dwelling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7. "Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict ... challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence[.]" Jerninghan v. State , 910 So. 2d 748, 751 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). "This Court reviews a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge de novo." Rainey v. State , 334 So. 3d 1124, 1128 (¶6) (Miss. 2022). "[T]he conviction must be affirmed if there was sufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact to have rendered a guilty verdict." Briggs v. State , 337 So. 3d 716, 720 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, "[t]he issue on appeal is not whether the reviewing court would have found the defendant guilty[.]" Id . "The jury is the sole fact-finder in this case, and we do not sit as a new jury and reevaluate the evidence[;] ... "[i]f the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, we can require no more." Rainey , 334 So. 3d at 1132-33 (¶¶30, 32).

DISCUSSION

¶8. For a claim of insufficient evidence, "this Court must determine 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.’ "

Shelvy v. State , 293 So. 3d 823, 826 (¶4) (Miss. 2020) (quoting Naylor v. State , 248 So. 3d 793, 796 (¶8) (Miss. 2018) ). "[T]he law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence but simply requires that, before convicting a defendant, the jury be satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case." Rainey , 334 So. 3d at 1133 (¶32) (quoting Nevels v. State , 325 So. 3d 627, 634 (¶20) (Miss. 2021) ).

¶9. Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-17-23(1) (Rev. 2014) defines burglary of a dwelling as

breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of such dwelling house of another, whether armed with a deadly weapon or not, and whether there shall be at the time some human being in such dwelling house or not, with intent to commit some crime therein[.]

The charge of "[b]urglary has only two required elements—the ‘(1) breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of such dwelling house of another[, and] (2) with the intent to commit some crime therein.’ " Bowman v. State , 283 So. 3d 154, 162 (¶25) (Miss. 2019) (quoting Windless v. State , 185 So. 3d 956, 960-61 (¶10) (Miss. 2015) ).

I. Evidence of Holder's Presence at the Dwelling Allegedly Burglarized

¶10. Holder first argues that the State's evidence was insufficient to establish that he was present at Hinton's residence when the alleged burglary occurred.¹ Holder claims that the only evidence placing him at Hinton's residence was Hill's testimony but that Hill's testimony did not confirm that the location she drove Holder to that day was in fact Hinton's residence. According to Holder, the State's evidence only showed that Holder passed through the community of Rawls Springs, and his mere presence in Rawls Springs was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had stopped at Hinton's residence.

¶11. However, Hill testified that on April 19, 2020, she had "offered to give [Holder] a ride home" and was "supposed to drop him off at his cousin[’s] house in Rawls Springs." She indicated that "when [she] stopped at what [she] thought was his cousin's house in Rawls Springs," Holder "said hold on a minute go[t] to see if his cousin was in the house." Hill testified that Holder "made a call on [her] phone to his cousin" and "got out of the car." According to Hill, Holder went "into a house," "came back out with a gun," and "then came back in the truck." She stated that "once [Holder] was in the vehicle" again, she "drove off because he said he was going to [get] drop[ped] off somewhere else." Then, "at some point in time afterwards," she was "contacted by Forrest County" investigators about the events from that day.

¶12. Hinton testified that he lives with Holder's cousin, Thigpen, in Rawls Springs at 48 Brantley Drive. Hinton stated that on April 19, 2020, he received a call from Holder, who "said he was out in Rawls Springs" and "was coming out there to holler at us for the day." Hinton indicated he told Holder no, but "based on [his] conversation with Mr. Holder," it was his understanding that Holder "might have been there already and was telling [Hinton] that he was coming." According to Hinton, Holder was not allowed to be at Hinton and Thigpen's residence, "so when he called, [Hinton] tried to rush around to the house." Hinton said that when he got back to the residence, he saw his side door "popped open." Hinton went in and "walked through the house and when [he] went to the back, he saw that [his] shotgun was missing." Hinton proceeded to file a police report and spoke to an investigator with the Forrest County Sheriff's Office the next day.

¶13. Investigator Keith Leroy testified that he reached out to Hinton on April 20, 2020, to discuss the...