Haymon v. State

Decision Date01 September 2022
Docket Number2021-KA-00240-SCT
PartiesTAJARVIS HAYMON AND CRYSTAL PERNELL v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2020

HOLMES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. BARRY W. FORD TRIAL JUDGE

TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: AKILLIE MALONE OLIVER SHARON ALGENA SPENCER ALVA PEYTON TAYLOR PEARLENE JONES

ALVA PEYTON TAYLOR PEARLENE JONES ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON HORNE ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:

AKILLIE MALONE OLIVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., MAXWELL AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ.

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE

¶1. Crystal Pernell and Tajarvis Haymon were convicted of two counts of armed robbery (Counts I and II), kidnapping (Count III) and aggravated assault (Count IV). On appeal, Pernell challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence used to support her conviction and argues that her request for a lesser offense jury instruction for simple assault should have been granted. Haymon argues that Danzel Williams's (Danzel) identification of him in a photo lineup was impermissibly suggestive. Finding no error we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On March 20, 2013, Danzel Williams (Danzel) was working on his car at his brother's house in Durant when he received a text message from Crystal Pernell asking him to come "chill." Pernell and Danzel had been frequently meeting and having sex with one another for more than a year. For these meetings, Danzel would usually drive to Pernell's house and park, although sometimes Danzel would pick up Pernell, and they would drive to different locations. Pernell proceeded to send Danzel a series of text messages throughout the day, as she usually did, insisting that he come to her house that evening and, on this occasion, that he bring cigars. Importantly, at this time, Pernell had a boyfriend, Tajarvis Haymon.

¶3. Before dark, Danzel borrowed his mother's car and drove to Pernell's aunt's house in West, where Pernell was residing. Pernell's aunt's house was at the end of a dead-end road and had a long driveway. Pernell was waiting in the driveway when Danzel arrived at the house, and Pernell directed him to park in their usual spot in "the cut." Pernell and Danzel sat in the front seat of the car and talked. Eventually, it was agreed that they should move to the back seat of the car.[1]

¶4. As Danzel was getting out of the car, two men dressed in black with black hoodies and black face coverings jumped out of the bushes near the car. One of the men hit Danzel in the eye, ear and back of the head with a pistol. Danzel fell to the ground and was held down and searched by the two men. Pernell stayed in the front seat of the car during the beginning of the attack and at some point went back into her house.[2] The two men repeatedly asked Danzel where his money and gun were located. When neither money nor guns were found, one of the attackers allegedly said, "oh I know where it at" and threw Danzel into the back seat of his mother's car. One man took the driver's seat and the other sat in the back seat holding a gun to Danzel's head.

¶5. When they approached Durant, the assailants lowered their masks so as not to arouse suspicion.[3] At this point, Danzel was able to see the driver's face through the reflection in the rearview mirror and recognized him as Chub, who was one of Pernell's relatives that he had known for many years. As they drove through town, Danzel testified he was able to glance up at the face of the man holding a gun to his head and identify him as Pernell's boyfriend.

¶6. Chub drove the car to where Danzel was staying in Durant. Chub took the gun from Pernell's boyfriend and followed Danzel to the house to get the money. Danzel went inside. When Danzel returned outside to give the money to Chub, he was able to look directly into Chub's face and recognize him by his cheekbones and hair. Danzel gave them $350 and ran back inside the house to alert his mother. Chub and Pernell's boyfriend rode away in Danzel's mother's car. Later that evening, Danzel gave a summary statement to the police; he reported that Pernell's boyfriend and brother [4] had robbed him. Then, Danzel went to the hospital for treatment of his injuries.

¶7. On March 21, 2014, Danzel gave a full statement to the police and was presented a photo lineup; he identified Jamarcus Williams[5] as Chub and Tajarvis Haymon as Pernell's boyfriend. Also on March 21, the day after the crimes, Conola Logan, a truck stop employee, saw Pernell, Haymon and Jamarcus riding together in the stolen vehicle. Surveillance camera footage showing Pernell, Haymon and Jamarcus at the truck stop was introduced as an exhibit at trial. The vehicle was later discovered in a locked and gated backyard behind Pernell's aunt's house.

¶8. At trial on October 19, 2020, Danzel identified Pernell and Haymon from the witness stand. The jury found Pernell guilty of two counts of armed robbery, one count of kidnapping and one count of aggravated assault. The jury found Haymon guilty of two counts of armed robbery, one count of kidnapping and one count of aggravated assault.

¶9. For Count I armed robbery, Pernell was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five years to serve, with credit for time already served, fifteen years suspended and five years' supervised probation. For Count II armed robbery, Pernell was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five years to serve, with credit for time already served, fifteen years suspended and five years' supervised probation. For Count III kidnapping, Pernell was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five years to serve, with credit for time already served, and fifteen years suspended. For Count IV aggravated assault, Pernell was sentenced to ten years suspended, with credit for time already served. Pernell's two armed robbery sentences and kidnapping sentence were ordered to run concurrently. Her aggravated assault sentence was ordered to run consecutively with the armed robbery and kidnapping sentences.

¶10. For Count I armed robbery, Haymon was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with ten years to serve and ten years suspended with credit for time already served. For Count II armed robbery, Haymon was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with ten years to serve and ten years suspended, with credit for time already served. For Count III kidnapping, Haymon was sentenced to twenty years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections, ten years to serve and ten years suspended pending good behavior. For Count IV aggravated assault, Haymon was sentenced to twenty years suspended. The aggravated assault sentence was ordered to run consecutively to the two armed robbery sentences and single kidnapping sentence. The armed robbery and kidnapping sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

ISSUES PRESENTED

¶11. On appeal Pernell argues: I. Whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or a new trial. II. Whether the trial court erred when it failed to grant Defendant's request for a lesser included offense jury instruction for simple assault.

¶12. On appeal Haymon argues:

III. Whether the trial court erred by failing to grant Haymon's motion to suppress the photo identification lineup.

DISCUSSION
I. Whether the trial court erred by denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict and/or a new trial.

¶13. Pernell argues that the State did not present evidence of any action or conduct indicating that Pernell planned the offenses; therefore, she argues, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for directed verdict or a new trial.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶14. An appeal of the trial court's denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is subject to a de novo standard of review. Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829, 833 (Miss. 2007) (citing Ivy v. State, 949 So.2d 748, 751 (Miss. 2007)). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will reverse and render judgment in favor of the defendant "only if the facts and inferences 'point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty ....'" Young v. State, 119 So.3d 309, 313 (Miss. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270, 275-76 (Miss. 2008)).

¶15. Pernell was convicted as a principal. Pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 97-1-3 (Rev. 2020), "[e]very person who shall be an accessory to any felony, before the fact, shall be deemed and considered a principal and shall be indicted and punished as such[.]" This Court has held that "[a]ny person who is present at the commission of a criminal offense and aids, counsels, or encourages another in the commission of that offense is an 'aider and abettor' and is equally guilty with the principal offender." Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870, 874 (Miss. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521, 533-34 (Miss. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Willis v. State, 300 So.3d 999 (Miss. 2020)). Additionally, "[t]his Court defined accessory before the fact as 'one who procures, counsels or commands another to commit a felony for him, but is not himself present, actually or constructively, when the felony is committed.'" Johnson v. State, 290 So.3d 1232, 1237 (Miss. 2020) (quoting Huff v. Edwards, 241 So.2d 654, 657 (Miss. 1970)). "The difference between the two is that...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT