Scruggs v. State

• Decision Date: 23 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 2019-KA-01579-COA,2019-KA-01579-COA
• Citation: 313 So.3d 1084
• Parties: Taderrius SCRUGGS a/k/a Taderrius M. Scruggs, Appellant v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

313 So.3d 1084

Taderrius SCRUGGS a/k/a Taderrius M. Scruggs, Appellant

v.STATE of Mississippi, Appellee

NO. 2019-KA-01579-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

March 23, 2021

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BRITTNEY SHARAE EAKINS

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McDONALD, JJ.

CARLTON, P.J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Taderrius Scruggs was tried and convicted of armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Alcorn County. Scruggs was sentenced to forty years of incarceration in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with fifteen of those years suspended and twenty-five years to serve, followed by five years of post-release supervision. Scruggs was also required to pay a fine, court costs, assessments, and restitution.

¶2. Scruggs appeals his conviction and sentence, asserting that he was detained without reasonable suspicion while the robbery victim was brought to his location for a possible identification, in violation of his right to be free of an unlawful "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 23 of the Mississippi Constitution. He further asserts that, as a result, the victim's positive identification and his (Scruggs's) subsequent statements to the police were inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Additionally, Scruggs asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not seek to exclude this evidence at trial. For the reasons addressed below, we affirm Scruggs's conviction and sentence and dismiss Scruggs's ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice to his right to pursue relief in a properly filed motion for post-conviction relief on this alleged error.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3. Scruggs's trial occurred on March 5-6, 2019. The victim, Roberto Perez, testified that about midday on April 7, 2015, as he was cleaning his car in his carport, two men robbed him at gunpoint and stole his wallet and his cell phone. According to Perez's testimony, the two men were walking down the street, and then they approached him. One man pointed a handgun at him while the other took Perez's wallet and his cell phone from his vehicle. The men then ran away. Perez said that both men were black and that the one who pointed the gun at him was black but "light skinned" wearing a "red sweatshirt and some shorts." He described the other man as being older and having "darker skin and he had, like, little braids on his hair."

¶4. After the men ran away, Perez testified that he ran inside, and his wife called 911. Perez's cousin, Marcelino Contreas, who lived about four houses down on the same street as Perez, testified that Perez came to his house and told him what happened, and then the two of them went back to Perez's home. Contreas testified that just before Perez came over, he had seen the two men running by his own home.

¶5. In response to the 911 call, Captain Landon Tucker and Officer William Timms of the Corinth Police Department (CPD) arrived at Perez's home. Contreas acted as an interpreter for Perez as needed. Perez told the police that he had been robbed and gave descriptions of the two men. Contreas also described the men. Officer Timms testified that based upon their description of the two men, he put out a "be on the lookout" (BOLO) alert for "two black males. One of them ... dark-skinned with dreadlocks and kind of [an] older gentleman. And then there was a younger gentleman that was supposedly light-skinned, a younger black male, that had a red jacket."¹

¶6. Detective Rogers testified that he was also on duty the day the robbery occurred, and Captain Tucker called him to come to the scene (Perez's home). Captain Tucker gave him Perez's description of the two suspects,² and Detective Rogers confirmed that a BOLO was sent out with this information.

¶7. Officer Timms testified that he left the scene, and he and another officer were later called and told to return to Perez's home and take Perez to the Combs Court apartments, where a man was being held for possible identification. They did so. Contreas accompanied Perez and the officers. Perez did not recognize the man who was being detained, but he recognized another man in the crowd of bystanders, Edmon Morgan, as the man who took his wallet and phone. Officer Chad Harville of the CPD, who was at the scene, testified that Morgan was arrested and taken in for questioning.

¶8. While Perez was still at this location, Officer Timms testified that he received a call that another man (later identified as Scruggs), was being detained "just around the corner" (in the same apartment complex) for Perez's possible identification. Officer Timms and another officer took Perez and Contreas to that location.

¶9. Regarding the circumstances surrounding Scruggs's detention, Captain Ben Gann of the CPD testified that he received an anonymous tip that there had been a robbery and that one of the suspects could be found in the cul-de-sac at Combs Court. Captain Gann testified that he received the tip on his personal cell phone. He said he was not involved in the case and did not know that a robbery had occurred. Captain Gann passed this tip along to Detective Rogers, who told him that the police were "in the process of working" an armed robbery.

¶10. Detective Rogers testified that after talking with Captain Gann, he went to 811B Pierce Street, which is in the cul-de-sac of Combs Court. He then testified:

I knocked on the door and a male subject came to the door that fit the description of the second male [suspect]. And I asked his name and he said Taderrius Scruggs. And I asked him could he come outside with me. He came outside and we had the victim [(Perez)] pull around there and he [(Perez)] identified him [(Scruggs)] as the second suspect.

Scruggs was then arrested and questioned by Detective Rogers.

¶11. Detective Rogers's interview of Scruggs was videotaped, and the videotape was played for the jury. The jury was also given copies of the interview transcript. In the interview, Scruggs admits that he and Morgan robbed a "Mexican." Scruggs also told Detective Rogers that the weapon used was a .38-caliber revolver, which he said he discarded. He told the detective that he robbed Perez "to get [his] girl out of jail." Detective Rogers testified that when he asked Scruggs for his girlfriend's name during the interview, Scruggs said it was "Katrina Magee." The transcript of the interview indicates that Scruggs's response to that question was unintelligible. Detective Rogers testified that he confirmed that "Katrina Magee" was in jail and had been booked the same day as the robbery.

¶12. Morgan (the other suspect) pleaded guilty to the Perez robbery. He testified at trial that on the morning of the robbery, Scruggs asked him for $500 to get his (Scruggs's) girlfriend out of jail. Morgan said he told Scruggs that he did not have the money. According to Morgan's testimony, the two men went walking, and Scruggs suggested that they "rob some Mexican." Morgan said they saw Perez and approached him. Scruggs pulled out a handgun. Morgan said he did not know Scruggs had a handgun. He admitted that he took Perez's wallet and cell phone as Scruggs aimed the gun at Perez. Morgan said he and Scruggs took off running and split up. Morgan testified that he discarded the wallet after he found no money inside. Police found Perez's wallet where Morgan told them it would be. They did not find the weapon allegedly used in the robbery or Perez's phone.

¶13. The State rested its case, and the defense moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.

¶14. Scruggs testified on his own behalf. He said that he ran into Morgan the morning of the robbery and that Morgan asked him for $500 to buy drugs. Scruggs also said that he was not wearing shorts that day as Perez had described. He testified that he told Morgan about his girlfriend being arrested a week before the robbery. Scruggs also testified that he did not need to commit any robbery to get money to get his girlfriend out of jail because his aunt already had the money ready for him to use. Scruggs repeatedly denied knowing Katrina McGee. He said that his girlfriend's name was Lacoria Terrell. Scruggs testified that he and Morgan went their separate ways after talking and that he was not involved in the robbery.

¶15. Scruggs testified that he never actually truthfully confessed to the police about being involved in the robbery. He only repeated details that Detective Rogers provided during questioning, and he only said what Detective Rogers wanted to hear in order to get the interview over so that he could post bail. Scruggs also testified at trial that he never had a gun. He testified that he said a "Mexican" was robbed only by process of elimination because Detective Rogers indicated that the robbery victim was not white or black. He said he specifically referenced a .38-caliber revolver in his interview only because that was the kind of gun he knew Morgan had.

¶16. A unanimous jury found Scruggs guilty of armed robbery. He was sentenced to forty years of incarceration in the custody of the MDOC, with fifteen years suspended and twenty-five years to serve, followed by five years of post-release supervision. Scruggs appeals.³

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶17. " ‘Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article III, Section 23 of the Mississippi Constitution protect an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.’ " Cole v. State , 242 So. 3d 31, 38 (¶12) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Eaddy v. State , 63 So. 3d 1209, 1212 (¶12) (Miss. 2011) ). A "mixed standard of review" applies in considering Fourth Amendment issues. Cook v. State , 159 So. 3d 534, 537 (¶6) (Miss. 2015). Specifically, this Court will "apply de novo review when determining whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists .... But...