Beemon v. State
| Citation | 75 So.3d 687 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | CR–08–1889. |
| Parties | Terrence BEEMON v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1100527.
Susan Graham James, Montgomery, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and James B. Prude, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Terrence Beemon, was convicted of one count of first-degree robbery, see § 13A–8–43, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced Beemon to 30 years' imprisonment; the sentence included a 10–year enhancement pursuant to § 13A–5–6(a)(4) Ala.Code 1975—the mandatory sentence enhancement applied when a firearm or deadly weapon is used or attempted to be used during the commission of a Class A felony, such as first-degree robbery. The trial court also ordered Beemon to pay $20,000 restitution, $1,000 to the crime victims compensation fund, and court costs.
The evidence presented at trial established that around 8:45 p.m. on December 8, 2007, four robbers armed with pistols and stun guns invaded the home of Praful Patel on Towne Lake Place as he returned home from work. One of the robbers pistol-whipped Praful in the kitchen and tied him up, using plastic binding. Praful's parents, who were in the living room at the time, were thrown to the ground, beaten, and likewise bound. One robber kicked down the door to the computer room in the Patels' house and forced Praful's son, Mayank Patel, out of the room at gunpoint. Mayank was then taken through the house at gunpoint while the robbers looked for money. One of the robbers demanded that Praful tell them where his money was hidden and poured hot water on him to make him comply with their demands. Praful eventually led the robbers to a small safe, which the robbers broke open; the safe contained more than $20,000 in cash, which the robbers took. The robbers then fled from the Patel household. Although each of the robbers was wearing dark clothing and some sort of mask covering his face, Praful could tell that the robbers were all black men because he could see a little bit of their faces through the openings in their masks. Mayank testified that all four robbers were wearing gloves.
Lisa Boone, who lived on Towne Lake Place, testified to seeing a "light-colored blue silvery looking car" parked at the end of the street on the night in question. (R. 57.) Boone found this noteworthy because she had never seen a vehicle parked in that spot in the 15 years she had been living on that street. Boone also noted that the vehicle had a Ten Commandments bumper sticker on the left side of the bumper. Boone proceeded to drive through the neighborhood and returned to Towne Lake Place approximately five minutes later. Boone observed that the vehicle was still parked in the same place and that no one was inside the vehicle. After hearing about the robbery at the Patel house, Boone contacted the Montgomery Police Department ("MPD") and provided a description of the vehicle she had seen parked on Towne Lake Place, specifically noting the Ten Commandments sticker she had observed on the vehicle's bumper.
Later in the evening, police arrested Beemon after stopping a vehicle matching the description given to police. While in custody, Beemon received a text from a person later determined to be Ronald Cargill that read: "[You] need to take that bumper sticker off." (C. 102; R. 143, 151–153.) MPD Detective B.E. Thornell conducted the first interview with Beemon at the police station. During this interview, Beemon denied any involvement with the robbery and told Detective Thornell that on the night in question, he was at home watching a pay-per-view boxing match. Beemon also told Thornell that his vehicle was also at home on the night in question and that he did not lend it to anyone.
Beemon later gave additional statements to MPD Detective Mike Myrick. In his second statement, Beemon initially reiterated his claim that he was at home the night the Patels were robbed, but after Detective Myrick told Beemon that they could check to see if he actually ordered the boxing match on pay-per-view, Beemon changed his story. Beemon told Detective Myrick that he was at a restaurant when he received a call from Ronald Cargill. Cargill asked Beemon to come and pick him up, then give him a ride home. Beemon agreed and Cargill directed him to a house in the Towne Lake subdivision. Beemon told Detective Myrick that upon arriving at the house, Cargill came running from the house wearing a camouflage jacket and dark jeans. After Detective Myrick began to question the facts given to him, Beemon once again changed his story. In his third version of events, Beemon told Detective Myrick that he did not pick Cargill up at the residence in Towne Lake; rather he drove Cargill to the residence in question. Beemon claimed that once they arrived there, the two waited outside the house, but did not get out of the vehicle or make contact with anyone there and drove away after waiting a few minutes. Beemon told Myrick that they drove to the house because Carlos Abrams had telephoned Cargill and told him that he needed help with the house. Detective Myrick testified that Beemon admitted that he knew a robbery was going on when he drove over to the house.
Kristen Maturi of the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences conducted DNA testing on a pair of brown work gloves recovered by MPD Detective G.R. Timmerman from the driver's side floorboard of Beemon's vehicle. According to Maturi, the DNA evidence recovered from the inside of the gloves matched Beemon's genetic profile, and the DNA evidence recovered from blood on the outside of the glove matched the genetic profile of Praful Patel.
Beemon testified in his own defense at trial. Beemon stated that he was riding around with Cargill on the night in question when Abrams telephoned them and directed them to the Patel house. Beemon admitted that he knew a robbery was taking place. Once they arrived at the house, Cargill got out to join in the robbery while Beemon remained inside the vehicle. Beemon testified that he was not armed with a weapon at the time and did not know if Cargill was armed. Cargill returned to the vehicle after 5 or 10 minutes, at which time the two drove away from the scene. Beemon testified that he asked Cargill what happened inside the residence, but claimed that he did not know that the people in the house had been robbed until he arrived at the police station. Beemon admitted to lying in prior statements because he did not want to put himself at the scene of the robbery. On cross-examination, Beemon admitted that he took Cargill over to the Patel household knowing that Cargill was going to participate in the robbery. Beemon stated that he did not know if anyone other than Cargill was involved with the robbery. Beemon believed Cargill was joking when he sent Beemon the text telling him to take the Ten Commandments bumper sticker off his vehicle. Beemon also stated that the gloves recovered from his vehicle containing his DNA were not his; he claimed that he had never seen them before trial.
After both sides rested and the trial court instructed the jury on the applicable law, the jury convicted Beemon of one count first-degree robbery as charged in the indictment.1 Beemon appealed.
On appeal, Beemon argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on second- and third-degree robbery as lesser-included offenses of first-degree robbery. Specifically, Beemon contends that there was ample evidence presented at trial to support both instructions.
At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, counsel for Beemon asked the trial court if it anticipated instructing the jury on second- or third-degree robbery as a lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery. The trial court stated that, based on the evidence presented, it would not be giving those instructions. It explained:
(R. 249.) Counsel for Beemon again asked the trial court at the close of the defense's case to instruct the jury on second- or third-degree robbery, but the trial court once again refused.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...Here, there was no evidence of negligence by the police as to the failure to show Newton a lineup. Compare Beemon v. State, 75 So. 3d 687, 697-98 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)(in determining whether Beemon's self-serving statement established a reasonable theory of defense such that lesser-include......
-
Jackson v. State
...case.”). Here, there was no evidence of negligence by the police as to the failure to show Newton a lineup. Compare Beemon v. State, 75 So.3d 687, 697–98 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (in determining whether Beemon's self-serving statement established a reasonable theory of defense such that lesser-i......
-
L.R.J. v. C.F., 2100437.
... ... at 630, this court held that, in enacting that statute, [t]he clear intent of the Legislature was to provide that the juvenile courts of this state should no longer be deciding custody disputes except insofar as their resolution is directly incidental to core juvenile-court jurisdiction.[75 So.3d ... ...