Vale v. State

243 So.3d 205

Shalonda Nikkia VALE a/k/a Shalonda N. Vale a/k/a Shalonda Vale a/k/a Shalondra Nikkia Vale a/k/a Shalondra Vale, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2016–KA–00914–COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

August 29, 2017

Rehearing Denied January 16, 2018

Certiorari Denied May 24, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ABBIE EASON KOONCE

EN BANC.

WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. Shalonda Vale and Kawaskei Bender¹ were charged as codefendants with burglary of a dwelling. After Vale's jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jones County, she was sentenced to twenty-one years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with seventeen years to serve, and the remaining four years suspended for postrelease supervision (PRS). Vale filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial, which was denied. Vale appeals, raising two issues:

I. Whether the indictment was fatally defective; and

II. Whether the indictment was constructively amended by jury instruction S–1.

After review of the record, we find Vale's indictment neglected to allege an essential element of the crime of burglary of a dwelling under Mississippi law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and render a dismissal of the indictment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. After arriving home from work, Carolyn Mulloy observed dust by her apartment door. Inside her apartment, Mulloy noticed a white envelope of coins and other valuables were missing. Mulloy filed a police report with the Laurel Police Department, and an officer advised her to check the local pawn shops to see if any of the shops were in possession of her missing items.

¶ 3. An employee at "The Gold Shop" notified Mulloy that a bag of jewelry and several other items had been sold to the shop. Mulloy testified the shop had several items of jewelry she did not even realize were missing. These items included a wedding-ring set, earrings, and various gold rings. The shop employee also noted that a high-school class ring and a University of Massachusetts class ring had already been sent to be melted down. The Gold Shop provided Mulloy with the names of two individuals responsible for selling the jewelry. Mulloy recognized the names of Vale and Bender, because the individuals lived together above her in the same apartment complex.

¶ 4. Mulloy submitted both Vale and Bender's names to Brandon Evans, an investigator with the Laurel Police Department. Shortly thereafter, Vale was arrested at her home. After waiving her right to an attorney, Vale confessed on videotape to burglarizing Mulloy's apartment. Vale confessed that she broke the lock on Mulloy's apartment door with a fingernail file and took the jewelry from Mulloy's night stand. Vale also confessed that she took coins in a white envelope from Mulloy's apartment. Vale told Detective Evans where all the items were located in Mulloy's home at the time she broke in, and that Bender was not with her during the time of the burglary.

¶ 5. However, at trial, she vehemently denied burglarizing Mulloy's home. Vale testified she confessed to the burglary because Bender stated he could not "take another charge." She testified Bender gave her the items of jewelry and said they belonged to his grandmother. Vale stated she took the jewelry to The Gold Shop, along with Bender's identification, and sold the items for cash.

¶ 6. Also at trial, Bender testified he broke into Mulloy's apartment alone, gave the stolen items to Vale, and asked her to find out whether the jewelry was real to possibly sell for cash. Bender stated he told Vale the jewelry belonged to his grandmother. Bender testified that Vale likely made up the story about her burglarizing Mulloy's apartment, because he would face life in jail for a conviction of burglary.²

¶ 7. A jury found Vale guilty of burglary of a dwelling. She was sentenced to twenty-one years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with seventeen years to serve, and with four years suspended, based upon the successful completion of four years of PRS. Vale filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. The motion was denied. Vale timely appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8. "The issue of whether an indictment is fatally defective is an issue of law and deserves a relatively broad standard of review by this Court." Snowden v. State , 131 So.3d 1251, 1255 (¶ 11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014). "As the issue involves a question of law, this Court applies a de novo standard of review." Id. (internal citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the indictment was fatally defective.

¶ 9. The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "where a deficiency appearing in an indictment is non-jurisdictional, it may not be raised for the first time on direct appeal absent a showing of cause and actual prejudice." Brown v. State , 37 So.3d 1205, 1209 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). However, "[the] courts have identified two instances where deficiencies are deemed jurisdictional: where the indictment fails to charge a necessary element of a crime, and where there exists no subject matter jurisdiction." Id. at 1209–10 (¶ 9) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

¶ 10. Vale did not object to the indictment before or during trial; however, the supreme court has previously held that "since the intent to steal was an essential element of the crime[,] the appellant's failure to demur to the indictment did not constitute a waiver of [the] right to raise the question on [a] motion for a new trial and on appeal." Taylor v. State , 214 Miss. 263, 268, 58 So.2d 664, 666 (1952) (citations omitted).

¶ 11. The indictment against Vale states:

[I]n said County, District, and State, on or about the 27th day of April, 2015, A.D., [Vale] did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and burglarious break into and enter the dwelling house of Carolyn Mulloy located at [address redacted], Laurel, MS, wherein valuable things were kept for use, and did carry away jewelry :

in violation of Section 97–17–23, Mississippi Code of 1972, and contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi.

Mississippi Code Annotated section 97–17–23(1) (Rev. 2014) reads as follows:

Every person who shall be convicted of 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 , shall be punished by commitment to the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than three (3) years nor more than twenty-five (25) years.

(Emphasis added).

¶ 12. Vale argues her indictment was defective, because it failed to set forth the element of "intent to commit a crime" inside Mulloy's dwelling. "Numerous Mississippi cases have held that the failure to include an essential element of the crime in the indictment is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured with extrinsic proof." Patton v. State , 34 So.3d 563, 573 (¶ 33) (Miss. 2010) (Kitchens, J., specially concurring) (citations omitted). "Thus, the indictment's failure to charge an essential element of the crime, value, violates fundamental federal and state constitutional rights and requires automatic reversal." Id. at 573–74 (¶ 33). We agree.

¶ 13. Vale's indictment failed to include the element "with intent to commit some crime therein." The words "wherein valuable things were kept for use, and did carry away jewelry" do not equate to the statutory element needed to indict Vale on the charge of burglary of a dwelling. "It has been uniformly holden, that where the evil intent accompanying an act is necessary to constitute such act a crime, the intent must be alleged in the indictment, and proved; and the intent with which the act was done, must be proved to be the same with that charged." Taylor , 214 Miss. at 267, 58 So.2d at 665. In Taylor, the supreme court reversed a conviction and quashed an indictment, because the indictment failed to allege an "intent to steal." Id. at 267–68, 58 So.2d at 664–66.

¶ 14. "An indictment must contain (1) the essential elements of the offense charged, (2) sufficient facts to fairly inform the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and (3) sufficient facts to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a future prosecution for the same offense." Spearman v. State , 80 So.3d 116, 119 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (citations omitted).

¶ 15. "The supreme court has repeatedly held that indictments based on statutory offenses are void if they do not charge all essential elements of the statutory crime." Gales v. State , 131 So.3d 1238, 1240 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Spears v. State , 253 Miss. 108, 116, 175 So.2d 158, 161–62 (1965) ). Accordingly, we find Vale's indictment failed to charge her with a crime under Mississippi law. This constitutional error requires dismissal of the indictment and reversal of Vale's burglary conviction.

II. Whether the indictment was constructively amended.

¶ 16. Vale argues that her indictment was constructively amended due to the variance in the indictment and jury instruction S–1. "Not all variances between the indictment and instructions constitute a constructive amendment." Graham v. State , 185 So.3d 992, 1001 (¶ 25) (Miss. 2016) (citing Bell v. State , 725 So.2d 836, 855 (¶ 61) (Miss. 1998) ). "The central question [a] [c]ourt must ask when reviewing an alleged constructive amendment is whether the variance is such as to substantially alter the elements of proof necessary for a conviction." Id. (quotation marks omitted). "As long as the change does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the fac[e]...