Holmes v. State
| Decision Date | 15 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2013–KA–00113–COA.,2013–KA–00113–COA. |
| Citation | 201 So.3d 491 |
| Parties | Justin Dominique HOLMES a/k/a Justin Domonique Holmes a/k/a Justin Holmes a/k/a Justin D. Holmes, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Christopher Brian Fisher, Michael W. Crosby, Gulfport, attorneys for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Scott Stuart, attorney for appellee.
Before LEE, C.J., BARNES, MAXWELL and WILSON, JJ.
MAXWELL
, J., for the Court:
¶ 1. Justin Dominique Holmes was convicted of heat-of-passion manslaughter and attempted aggravated assault. The charges stemmed from him shooting one person to death and attempting to shoot another. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. He also argues that the indictment was improperly amended from aggravated assault to attempted aggravated assault and that his trial counsel was ineffective. After review, we find no error and affirm.
¶ 2. On January 29, 2011, half-brothers Larenzo Pettis and Kyle Oatis drove to Lenard Dennis's home around 12:30 p.m. Larenzo had purchased drugs from Lenard in the past, and was in search of cocaine that day. Lenard was barbequing in his front yard when the two men arrived looking for drugs. But when asked for dope, Lenard told Larenzo to “get the hell away” from his house. Lenard and Larenzo then began cussing each other, prompting Lenard's family to come outside. Among those present were Stacy Dennis (Lenard's nineteen-year-old son), Josh Harvey (Lenard's seventeen-year-old son), Danielle Harvey (Lenard's daughter), Kiwana Sanders (Lenard's significant other and Stacy's mom), and Tammy Woods (Lenard's neighbor).
¶ 3. After hearing Larenzo insult Lenard, Stacy punched Larenzo in the mouth.1 This jab dazed Larenzo momentarily. But Larenzo made it back to the car, and Kyle started to drive off. As the two began to leave, they taunted Lenard's family to come down the street to fight. And Lenard's family obliged, taking off on foot in pursuit of Kyle's car.
¶ 4. Then Holmes—who was Lenard's neighbor and close family friend—somehow entered the picture. According to several witnesses, Holmes fired two shots at Kyle's moving vehicle. Unwisely, Kyle called Holmes a profane name and started teasing him for shooting what he thought were blanks. This apparently further upset Holmes, so he opened fire again on Kyle's car. This time, bullets hit Kyle in the chest, lower back, and arm, causing him to crash his car into a bridge. Kyle died while en route by ambulance to a hospital.
¶ 5. Dr. Paul McGarry, a forensic pathologist, testified that Kyle died of internal bleeding from the gunshot wounds
. Three .25–caliber projectiles were found in Kyle's body and five .25–caliber automatic shell casings were recovered from the scene. There was no dispute from the various witnesses that Holmes was the shooter and that Holmes was the only person with a gun.
¶ 6. On July 25, 2011, Holmes was indicted for murder and aggravated assault. On October 29, 2012, the State filed a motion to amend the indictment, asking the court to modify Count II from aggravated assault to attempted aggravated assault.2 Trial began on November 6, 2012. After its case-in-chief, the State made an ore tenus motion to amend the indictment, based on the same ground as its pretrial motion. The circuit court amended the indictment. After deliberating, the jury found Holmes guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter and attempted aggravated assault. The judge sentenced Holmes to twenty years for manslaughter and twenty years for aggravated assault, to run concurrently. Holmes appealed.
¶ 7. Holmes raises a variety of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. We address each in turn.
¶ 8. When assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶ 16) (Miss.2005)
. Credible evidence consistent with guilt must be accepted as true. Day v. State, 126 So.3d 1011, 1014 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2013). We give the State the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence. Jones v. State, 20 So.3d 57, 64 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2009) (citing Hughes v. State, 983 So.2d 270, 275–76 (¶¶ 10–11) (Miss.2008) ). And the jury resolves matters of weight and credibility. Day, 126 So.3d at 1014 (¶ 10). Reversal is only proper if reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. Jones, 20 So.3d at 64 (¶ 16).
¶ 9. Holmes was charged with murder, but the jury found him guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. As he sees it, there was no evidence he “had any reason to be in the heat of passion of anything.” So he feels the evidence was insufficient to support a manslaughter conviction. But missed in his argument is the fact that it was Holmes who spoke up and requested—and was granted—a manslaughter instruction.
¶ 10. On appeal, he now tries to distance himself from that evidentiary request, as well as the initial skirmish between Lenard and Larenzo and the ensuing chase that ended in Kyle's death. But at trial his tune was quite different. There, Holmes's attorney argued, “Judge, you heard testimony ... that a fight took place, and as a result of the fight, we feel like we're entitled to a lesser[-]included charge of manslaughter.” The State had no objection to Holmes's requested instruction, and the judge granted it.3
¶ 11. After review, we find Holmes got just what he asked for and cannot now complain of it. Indeed, our supreme court has been crystal clear that “an accused may not complain of an instruction given at his request.” Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473, 508 (
¶ 121) (Miss.2002) (quoting Buford v. State, 372 So.2d 254, 256 (Miss.1979) ). For this reason, we too find Holmes cannot complain about the manslaughter instruction-an instruction he specifically asked for.
¶ 12. This bar aside, we do briefly note there was testimony that Lenard's family was angrily chasing Kyle's vehicle, when Holmes apparently joined the chaos and fired two shots at Kyle's car. Kyle then hurled a vulgarity at Holmes, teasing him for shooting what he thought were blanks. At that point Holmes fired away again, this time shooting Kyle to death.4 We recognize “words alone ... are not enough to invoke the passion required for” manslaughter. Abeyta v. State, 137 So.3d 305, 311 (¶ 10) (Miss.2014)
(quoting Phillips v. State, 794 So.2d 1034, 1037 (¶ 10) (Miss.2001) ). But viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the angry scene and chase, perhaps in combination with Kyle's insult and heckling, may have justified the jury in believing Holmes, without malice and fueled by passion, opened fire on Kyle.
¶ 13. But we need not speculate much, since “[i]ssues regarding whether a crime occurred in the heat of passion are resolved by the jury.” Davis v. State, 130 So.3d 1141, 1151 (¶ 39) (Miss.Ct.App.2013)
. This is particularly true where Holmes asked for the specific manslaughter instruction he now challenges.
¶ 14. Holmes also claims there was insufficient evidence to show he attempted to shoot at Larenzo. So in his eyes, the State also failed to prove attempted aggravated assault. Again, we disagree.
¶ 16. Kyle drove the vehicle, and Larenzo was the passenger. Several witnesses testified that Holmes shot at the car and no one else had a gun. When asked if he was “shot at too that day[,]” Larenzo made clear—“[b]ullets was coming that way, so evidently I was[.]” And Detective Chris Baker testified the passenger door had an “impact mark ... where something struck the vehicle on the inside of the door panel....” He believed this was consistent with a gunshot. Therefore, we find the evidence more than sufficient for Holmes's attempted-aggravated-assault conviction.
¶ 17. Holmes also remarks about witness credibility. He suggests the State's “witnesses were severely impeached” and “all lied to the investigator to protect their son/brother.” But credibility calls are for the jury, not appellate courts. Pearson v. State, 64 So.3d 569, 574 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2011)
. And ultimately, after sizing up the evidence, the jury believed Lenard's family members.
¶ 18. Holmes also vaguely argues his assault conviction was against the weight of the evidence. We will disturb a verdict only in those rare cases where “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So.2d at 844 (¶ 18)
. When a weight-of-the-evidence argument is made, we weigh the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. With this standard in mind and for the reasons already cited in Section I, we too find Holmes's assault conviction was supported by the weight of the evidence.
¶ 19. Holmes also argues the circuit judge “chang[ed] the material elements” of the indictment by substantively amending it from aggravated assault5 to attempted aggravated assault.6
¶ 20. Considering his amendment-based argument, we point out that an indictment may only be amended at trial if the amendment is immaterial to the case's merits and the defense will not be prejudiced by the amendment. Griffin v. State, 584 So.2d 1274, 1276 (Miss.1991)
. But substantive amendments to the charge must be made by the grand jury. Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 860 (Miss.1995).
The attempt addition is what he challenges here. And in one sense, he is right that an attempt to commit a crime is, generally, an indictable offense, separate and distinct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...285, 152 So. 876, 877 (1934) ; Cooper v. State , 230 So. 3d 1071, 1080-81 (¶¶31, 33) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ; Holmes v. State , 201 So. 3d 491, 494 n.3 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) ; Sacus v. State , 956 So. 2d 329, 334 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) ; Pritchett v. State , 744 So. 2d 326, 332 (¶35) (M......
-
McCarty v. State, 2016–KA–00602–COA
...199 Miss. 163, 164–65, 24 So.2d 351, 351 (1946) ; Calicoat v. State , 131 Miss. 169, 95 So. 318, 321–22 (1923) ; Holmes v. State , 201 So.3d 491, 494 n.4 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) ; Simpson v. State , 993 So.2d 400, 409–10 (¶ 32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ; Schankin v. State , 910 So.2d 1113, 1118 ......