SEPHUS v. State, 2001-KA-00501-COA.
| Decision Date | 16 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2001-KA-00501-COA.,2001-KA-00501-COA. |
| Citation | 815 So.2d 447 |
| Parties | Stephen M. SEPHUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Dewitt Talmadge Bates, Jr., attorney for appellant.
Office of the Attorney General by Scott Stuart, attorney for appellee.
Before SOUTHWICK, P.J., THOMAS, and IRVING, JJ.
THOMAS, J., for the court.
¶ 1. Stephen Sephus was found guilty in the Circuit Court of Pike County of burglary of a building. Sephus was sentenced to five years with the first thirty months to serve and the remaining thirty months to be served on post-release supervision. Sephus was also ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000, restitution of $875, court appointed attorney fees of $500, and court costs. Aggrieved, he asserts the following issue:
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Finding no error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶ 2. On July 27, 2000, Willadean Wilson went to a vacant house trailer that she owned with her husband in Pike County, Mississippi. When she left the trailer, both air conditioning units were in place and the door was locked. What happened after Mrs. Wilson left the trailer is in dispute, but the following testimony and evidence was presented at trial.
¶ 3. Stephen Sephus testified that he and a young lady were riding in a van and that the young lady needed to use a restroom. Sephus and the young lady stopped at the trailer owned by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, which Sephus claimed to have mistook for a shop. Sephus entered the trailer in order to determine if there was a restroom available. The young lady decided to drive down the road approximately three hundred feet and use the restroom in a wooded area. She then returned to the trailer where Sephus motioned for her to come in to use the restroom. At this point, Rebecca White, a tenant who lived in a mobile home directly behind the trailer Sephus had entered, heard noises from the trailer and went to investigate. Upon seeing Ms. White, Sephus testified that he became nervous about trespassing, so he got into the vehicle with the young lady and left.
¶ 4. Rebecca White notified the Wilsons about the trespasser she had seen, and she described Sephus and his van. The Wilsons went to the trailer to investigate. They found the door unlocked and one air conditioner missing from the trailer. Another larger air conditioner had been removed and was sitting face down on the floor of the trailer.
¶ 5. The next day, Sephus and a friend drove down the road past the trailer. Mr. Wilson, former sheriff of Pike County, saw the van and recognized it from the description given by Ms. White. Mr. Wilson gave chase and made a citizen's arrest of Sephus. According to Sephus, Wilson took Sephus back to Mr. Wilson's home and questioned him at gunpoint about the burglary of an air conditioner from the trailer Sephus had entered. Sephus remembered Wilson "programming" him to admit to the burglary. Wilson called the Pike County Sheriffs Office and notified them of his citizen's arrest of Sephus. Deputies picked up Sephus and took him to the county jail.
¶ 6. After arriving at the county jail, Sephus gave a taped statement which is quite different from the testimony recounted above. In his statement, Sephus told the investigating officer that he had entered the trailer owned by the Wilsons through a window, unlocked and opened the door from the inside, and removed and carried away a small air conditioner which he sold for thirty dollars. Sephus and the young lady then returned to the trailer. Sephus instructed the young lady to drive away and then return in a few minutes, and he entered the trailer through the door he had previously unlocked in order to take a second, larger air conditioner. When the young lady returned in the van, Sephus motioned for her to pull into the driveway. The young lady pointed to Ms. White who had come to investigate noises coming from the trailer. Sephus got in the vehicle with the young lady and they drove away.
¶ 7. A few days after giving his statement, Sephus asked to retract his statement. The investigator asked Sephus if he had talked with some of the "jailhouse attorneys" or if he had seen the article in the paper by Mr. Wilson criticizing the current sheriff of Pike County. Sephus replied that he had. The officer told him that he did not have time to talk to Sephus and that he could retract his statement once he got an attorney. Sephus was tried January 30, 2001, and a jury found him guilty of burglary. It is from that conviction that Sephus appeals.
ANALYSIS
I. DID THE LOWER COURT ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
¶ 8. Sephus claims that evidence presented by the State did not satisfy both elements of the crime of burglary of a building. Sephus argues that he did not have the intent to commit a crime within the trailer when he entered it. He also argues that the rule of review should be that of circumstantial evidence and that this would bolster his position because "mere support for the State's hypothesis in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence is not enough, for it must be of such quality as to rise to the level of excluding every other reasonable hypothesis other than that of guilt." Murphy v. State 566 So.2d 1201, 1204 (Miss.1990). Sephus claims that there was no direct evidence because his statement was coerced by Mr. Wilson.
¶ 9. In regard to his statement, Sephus did not raise the issue that the statement was coerced when it was before the lower court. A failure to object or file a motion to suppress contraband before the trial court procedurally bars the issue from being raised on appeal. Thornton v. State, 724 So.2d 1003, 1005(¶ 11) (Miss.Ct. App.1998). Sephus also fails to cite any authority supporting his claim. If the party does not provide this support, the court is under no duty to consider assignments of error when no authority is cited. Drennan v. State, 695 So.2d 581, 586 (Miss. 1997). This Court is therefore under no obligation to consider the assignment. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 781 (Miss. 1993).
¶ 10. Even if we were to examine the statement made by Sephus, we would find that it was not coerced. The "sole concern of the Fifth Amendment, on which Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) was based, is government coercion." Evans v. State, 725 So.2d 613, 638(¶ 45) (Miss.1997)(quoting Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 170, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986)). Indeed, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not concerned "with moral and psychological pressures to confess emanating from sources other than official coercion." Evans, 725 So.2d at 638 (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 305, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985)). Sephus claims to have been coerced by Mr. Wilson. Although Wilson was the former sheriff of Pike County, he was not a government official at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial