Harris v. State

• Decision Date: 25 August 2020
• Docket Number: NO. 2018-KA-01266-COA,2018-KA-01266-COA
• Citation: 311 So.3d 638
• Parties: Roosevelt HARRIS, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

311 So.3d 638

Roosevelt HARRIS, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2018-KA-01266-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

Filed August 25, 2020

Rehearing Denied December 8, 2020

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: HUNTER NOLAN AIKENS, GEORGE T. HOLMES, ROOSEVELT HARRIS (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: SCOTT STUART, Jackson

EN BANC.

BARNES, C.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. A Rankin County Circuit Court jury convicted Roosevelt Harris (Harris) of three counts: receiving stolen property (Count I); possessing a motor vehicle with an altered vehicle identification number (VIN) (Count II); and making fraudulent statements and representations to defraud the government (Count III). The circuit court sentenced Harris as a non-violent habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015) and ordered him to serve the following sentences in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) without eligibility for probation or parole: ten years for Count I; five years for Count II, with the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence in Count I; and five years for Count III, with the sentence to run consecutively to the sentences in Counts I and II.

¶2. On appeal, Harris's appointed attorney argues that (1) the circuit court erroneously denied Harris's motion to suppress evidence, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict as to each count, and (3) the court erroneously sentenced Harris as a habitual offender. Harris filed a pro se supplemental brief, reiterating these arguments and alleging numerous additional errors. In reviewing Harris's pro se arguments, we address the merits of those claims raised before the circuit court, and we review under plain-error analysis any "obvious errors" that affect Harris's "fundamental, substantive right[s.]" See Chambliss v. State , 233 So. 3d 898, 903 (¶24) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). As for Harris's pro se arguments not raised during trial or in the post-trial motion, and for which we find no basis for reversal under a plain-error analysis, we conclude those issues are waived, and we decline to address them on appeal. See Kidd v. State , 284 So. 3d 777, 784 (¶30) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019).

¶3. Specifically, we address the following errors alleged by Harris in his pro se supplemental brief: (1) the State failed to preserve evidence; (2) the circuit court sentenced Harris to an illegal sentence; (3) the circuit court erred by allowing the State to instruct the jury on the law; (4) Harris was subjected to double jeopardy for his convictions in Counts I and II; (5) Harris's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated; (6) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing argument; and (7) Harris's trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

¶4. Upon review, we find that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict for Count III, which charged Harris with making fraudulent statements and representations to defraud the government. We therefore reverse and render a verdict in Harris's favor as to the judgment of conviction and sentence for Count III. With regard to the remaining assignments of error raised by Harris and his attorney, we find they lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm Harris's convictions and sentences for Counts I and II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶5. On January 22, 2013, Larry Kimzey reported that his truck, a 2013 white Ford F-150, had been stolen. He filed a claim with Mississippi Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau), which determined the total adjusted value of Kimzey's truck to be $39,741, and paid Kimzey a settlement claim of $39,650 for his stolen truck.

¶6. On May 17, 2016, Sergeant Brad Conner with the Brandon Police Department was working traffic detail on Interstate 20 when he received a be-on-the-lookout notification (BOLO) for a stolen vehicle traveling westbound. The BOLO described the stolen vehicle as a white Ford F-150 displaying the license plate number WB3 928. Sergeant Conner saw a truck drive by matching the description of the stolen vehicle, and he observed that the truck was driving eighty miles per hour in a sixty-mile-per-hour speed zone and had the same license plate number as given in the BOLO. Sergeant Conner pursued the vehicle, but before he could activate his blue lights, the truck pulled to the side of the interstate. Sergeant Conner activated his blue lights and parked behind the truck. The traffic stop occurred around 1:08 a.m.

¶7. The truck contained two individuals later identified as Harris and Harris's son, Roosevelt Harris III (Roosevelt). Because Sergeant Conner was alone and had reason to believe that the truck was stolen, he asked Harris and Roosevelt to exit the truck and handcuffed them for his own safety. Sergeant Conner advised Harris and Roosevelt of their Miranda¹ rights, and Harris responded that he understood his constitutional rights. When questioned about the truck, Harris indicated to Sergeant Conner that he had owned the truck for about a year. Sergeant Conner asked for Harris's consent to search the truck for documentation to determine whether the vehicle was stolen. Harris consented to the search, and Sergeant Conner retrieved a certificate of title, a bill of sale, insurance cards, and a vehicle registration from inside the truck. The certificate of title and bill of sale indicated that Harris bought the truck from Stan King Chevrolet on July 10, 2015, and the vehicle's registration showed that Harris had been issued the license plate number WB3 928. Sergeant Conner called in the truck's VIN, which was a "sticker," but no record of the VIN was found. Sergeant Conner arrested Harris and had the truck towed to the police department. There, it was discovered that the VIN "sticker" had been covering the truck's original VIN, which matched the VIN of the stolen truck.

¶8. Harris was charged with possession of stolen goods, possession of a vehicle with an altered VIN, and making a false representation to defraud the government.

¶9. Harris filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence (the title application and bill of sale) that Sergeant Conner obtained during the search, arguing that because the officer had illegally arrested Harris prior to conducting the search, the search incident to the arrest was invalid, and the evidence Sergeant Conner had obtained was inadmissible. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Harris's motion to suppress.

¶10. At trial, Sergeant Conner confirmed that he recovered a bill of sale, certificate of title, and proof of insurance from the truck with Harris's consent. Sergeant Conner further testified that during the traffic stop, as he noticed there was no manufacturer's VIN plate visible on the driver's side door of Harris's truck, he inspected the VIN on the truck's windshield. Rather than the typical metallic VIN plate with raised characters, the VIN on Harris's truck windshield appeared to be just a "sticker." Sergeant Conner was able to get a knife blade underneath the VIN to confirm it was "a sticker or [that] some adhesive had been laid underneath it ... [, but] it didn't peel up." He called dispatch to run a check on the sticker VIN. Although the records check returned no results and gave no indication that the truck was stolen, Sergeant Conner was still suspicious due to the sticker's being placed over the VIN plate. After having the truck towed to the police department, Sergeant Conner testified that he was "actually able to remove the VIN plate, and it showed the true factory VIN." A search of the factory VIN revealed that Harris's truck was in fact Kimzey's stolen truck.

¶11. Sergeant Conner testified that he had a camera in his patrol car that was supposed to begin recording whenever he activated his car's blue lights. Sergeant Conner explained that the server was located in the trunk of his patrol car and that any recording remained on the server until he reached the police department, at which time the recording automatically uploaded to the police department's system. However, investigators later informed him that the server in his patrol car failed to upload any video of the traffic stop. Sergeant Conner testified that he had no access to the recording system and that he had not deleted any video footage of the traffic stop. Further, he testified that Officer Michael Wallace, who arrived on the scene at approximately 1:10 a.m. to assist him with the traffic stop, had recorded footage of the stop. The State introduced into evidence the video recording from Officer Wallace's patrol car.

¶12. Lieutenant Beau Edgington, the chief investigator for the Investigations Division of the Brandon Police Department, testified that he reviewed the documents Sergeant Conner had collected from Harris's truck. Lieutenant Edgington observed that the bill of sale found in Harris's truck was handwritten, which Lieutenant Edgington testified was unusual for a vehicle purchased from a dealership. He further noticed that the bill of sale indicated Harris had bought the truck from Stan King Chevrolet on July 10, 2015; some of Harris's other documents indicated that the truck had been insured since March 21, 2013.

¶13. Seth Allen, Stan King Chevrolet's business manager, testified that he had worked at the dealership for over twenty years and that he filled out the dealership's title applications when the dealership sold a vehicle. The title application in Harris's possession indicated that a "John Smith" from Stan King Chevrolet had filled out the form, but Allen testified that no such person worked at the dealership. As for the bill of sale found in Harris's truck, Allen testified that the dealership did not usually sign bills of sale as "Stan King Chevrolet" or use handwritten bills of sale like the one in Harris's possession. Allen further testified that he had checked the dealership's records for the VIN listed on Harris's documents, and...