Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 10 August 2021
• Docket Number: No. 2019-KA-01801-COA,2019-KA-01801-COA
• Citation: 325 So.3d 1177
• Parties: Archie L. JOHNSON a/k/a Archie Johnson a/k/a Archie Lee Johnson a/k/a Archie Levell, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

325 So.3d 1177

Archie L. JOHNSON a/k/a Archie Johnson a/k/a Archie Lee Johnson a/k/a Archie Levell, Appellant,

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 2019-KA-01801-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

August 10, 2021

Rehearing Granted September 28, 2021

Rehearing Denied February 1, 2022

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: MOLLIE MARIE McMILLIN ARCHIE L. JOHNSON (PRO SE)

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALLISON KAY HARTMAN

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.

GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Archie Johnson was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced as a violent habitual offender to life in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Subsequently, Johnson's appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Lindsey v. State , 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005), certifying to this Court that the record presented no arguable issues for appeal. Then Johnson filed a pro se supplemental brief and a brief addendum claiming (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict, (2) a DNA sample should not have been admitted into evidence because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, (3) the court erred by sentencing him as a violent habitual offender, (4) he should have been granted a mistrial, and (5) the charging affidavit and indictment were illegal. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In February 2017, Johnson was indicted for one count of kidnapping. Two years later, in February 2019, the State filed a motion to amend the indictment to charge Johnson as a violent habitual offender. The court entered an order amending the indictment in March 2019.¹

¶3. In November 2019, a trial was held. At trial, Officer Julian Lonnie with the Jackson Police Department (JPD) testified that on June 4, 2016, Aldora Williams reported that two days earlier on June 2, 2016, she had been assaulted and held against her will for approximately twelve hours at her home in Jackson, Mississippi. During the investigation, Officer Lonnie learned that Williams had been sitting on her porch when an African American male asked her for some water. When Williams went inside to get the water, the man pushed her inside the house and locked the door. Then the man showed her his penis and indicated that he wanted to have sex with her. When Williams refused, the man threatened to stab her in the neck with an ice pick and punched her in the head. Officer Lonnie testified that Williams appeared to have some bruising. According to Officer Lonnie, Williams did not know the suspect's name but described him as a forty-seven to fifty-year-old "dark-skinned black male" who was approximately 5 feet and 6 or 7 inches tall and weighed about 145 pounds.

¶4. Jasmine Haynes, a detective with JPD, testified that she interviewed Williams on June 6, 2016. Detective Haynes' investigation revealed that Williams was sitting on her porch when an African American male approached her and asked her for water. When she went inside, he forced his way into her house and held her against her will for approximately twelve hours. She was threatened with an ice pick and physically beaten. According to Detective Haynes, Williams did not know the suspect's name but had seen him in some red, abandoned houses on Bailey Avenue. Detective Haynes went to the location and spoke with the landlord, who stated that Johnson lived in one of the houses despite having been asked to leave several times. On June 23, 2016, Detective Haynes presented a photo lineup to Williams. According to Detective Haynes, Williams circled Johnson's photo and wrote, "This is the man that held me against my will in my own home and attempted to rape me. He also beat me in the head with his fist and threatened to stab me with an ice pick."

¶5. In October 2018, Detective Haynes obtained a warrant and collected a DNA sample from Johnson.² Detective Haynes requested that the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory compare Johnson's known DNA sample with DNA found on cigarette butts that were retrieved from an ashtray in Williams' living room. Joseph Heflin, a forensic biologist with the Mississippi Forensics Laboratory, testified as an expert in the field of DNA analysis. According to Heflin, unless Johnson had an identical twin, the DNA on at least one cigarette butt belonged to him.

¶6. Williams, who was seventy-eight years old at the time of trial, testified that she was on her porch when a man approached her and pushed her inside her house. She testified that the man was there for approximately twelve hours, and she did not feel like she could leave.³ According to Williams, the man hit her and held an ice pick and knife to her neck. Williams identified Johnson in the courtroom as the man who approached her on June 2, 2016.

¶7. After the State rested its case, the defense moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied the motion, and the defense rested without calling any witnesses. After the jury considered the evidence presented at trial, Johnson was convicted of kidnapping.

¶8. At the sentencing hearing, Marilyn Smith Hilcott—the chief records officer for the MDOC—testified as to Johnson's prior convictions. Ultimately, the court sentenced Johnson, as a violent habitual offender, to life in the custody of the MDOC.

DISCUSSION

¶9. In Lindsey , our supreme court adopted a procedure "to govern cases where appellate counsel represents an indigent criminal defendant and does not believe his or her client's case presents any arguable issues on appeal[.]" Lindsey , 939 So. 2d at 748 (¶18). First, "[c]ounsel must file and serve a brief in compliance with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(1) -[(5), (8)]." Id . In the brief,

counsel must certify that there are no arguable issues supporting the client's appeal, and he or she has reached this conclusion after scouring the record thoroughly, specifically examining: (a) the reason for the arrest and the circumstances surrounding arrest; (b) any possible violations of the client's right to counsel; (c) the entire trial transcript; (d) all rulings of the trial court; (e) possible prosecutorial misconduct; (f) all jury instructions; (g) all exhibits, whether admitted into evidence or not; and (h) possible misapplication of the law in sentencing.

Id . Next, counsel must forward a copy of the brief to the client, informing the client that counsel was unable to discover any arguable issues in the record and advising the client that he or she has a right to file a pro se brief. Id .

¶10. Johnson's appellate counsel submitted a brief in compliance with Lindsey . Johnson then filed a pro se supplemental brief and a brief addendum, asserting the following assignments of error: (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict, (2) his DNA sample should not have been admitted into evidence because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, (3) the court erred by sentencing him as a violent habitual offender, (4) he should have been granted a mistrial, and (5) the charging affidavit and indictment were illegal.

I. Whether the trial court erred by denying Johnson's motion for a directed verdict.

¶11. Johnson claims that the court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, Johnson claims that the State failed to prove that he removed Williams from her home.

¶12. "A motion for a directed verdict, request for peremptory instruction, and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict all challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence." Lane v. State , 841 So. 2d 1163, 1169 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing McClain v. State , 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) ). "Since each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court." Id . Johnson moved for a directed verdict after the State rested its case. The court denied the motion, and the defense rested without presenting any evidence. Then the court denied Johnson's request for a peremptory instruction and later denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial.

¶13. "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the [State], any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Kidd v. State , 284 So. 3d 777, 783 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Reynolds v. State , 227 So. 3d 428, 436 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ).

¶14. The crime of kidnapping is committed whenever "[a]ny person who, without lawful authority and with or without intent to secretly confine, shall forcibly seize and confine any other person, or shall inveigle or kidnap any other person with intent to cause such person to be confined or imprisoned against his or her will ...." Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-53 (Rev. 2014). The State was not required to prove that Johnson removed Williams from her home.

¶15. At trial, the State presented evidence that Johnson approached Williams and asked her for some water. When Williams went to get the water, Johnson pushed her inside the house and locked the door. Then Johnson showed Williams his penis and indicated that he wanted to have sex with her. When Williams refused, Johnson threatened her with an ice pick and punched her in the head. Williams testified that Johnson was there for approximately twelve hours, and she did not feel like she could leave.

¶16. When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the evidence was sufficient to find Johnson guilty of kidnapping. This issue is without merit.

II. Whether Johnson's DNA sample was inadmissible because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

¶17. Johnson seemingly claims that the court erred by admitting his DNA...