State v. Winters
| Decision Date | 30 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 83417 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Martese Jamon Johnson WINTERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michel A. Trapasso, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Kathryn M. Merwald, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Thomas H. Newton, Judge and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge
Martese Jamon Johnson Winters ("Winters") appeals from a judgment convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and sexual exploitation of a minor. Winters argues that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of a total term of twenty years because the trial court did not have the authority to increase the jury's total recommended sentence, and that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that increased the jury's recommendation. Finding no error, we affirm.
Winters does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and sexual exploitation of a minor. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,1 the evidence established that, in February 2018, Winters, nineteen years old, and H.Q. ("Victim"), sixteen years old, were once in a relationship but that it had recently ended prior to February 26, 2018. Winters continued to contact Victim through text messages, phone calls, and social media. On February 26, 2018, Winters visited Victim's home and the two argued. Winters left, but returned when Victim asked him to come back.
Victim testified that when Winters returned, he had a gun, which he pulled out and pressed against Victim's neck and face. Winters told her to get undressed and Victim did so, because she was scared. Winters forced Victim to perform oral sex on him, and after a few minutes, he started recording the assault on Victim's cellphone. Winters penetrated Victim's vagina with his penis. She asked him to stop but he did not. At some point, Winters dropped Victim's phone, but it continued to record the rape.
The next day, Victim stayed home from school. Victim testified that she texted Winters and asked him, "do you know I didn't want to do that?" and Winters responded that Victim deserved it because she cheated on him. [Tr. 402] Victim showed her sister the video of the rape, and her sister told their mother, who reported the rape to police.
On March 1, 2018, Winters was arrested and later interviewed by detectives. He told detectives that the gun was a fake gun. Detectives recovered the video of the rape and text messages between Winters and Victim. The State charged Winters with one count of rape in the first degree in violation of section 566.0302 ("Count I"); two counts of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015 ("Count II" and "Count IV"); one count of sodomy in the first degree in violation of section 566.060 ("Count III"); and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of section 573.023 ("Count V").
After a three-day jury trial in October 2018, the jury returned its verdicts, finding Winters guilty of Count I, rape in the first degree, Count III, sodomy in the first degree, and Count V, sexual exploitation of a minor. The jury acquitted Winters of Counts II and IV, the two counts of armed criminal action. The trial then proceeded to the penalty phase.
Winters did not waive jury sentencing. At the beginning of the penalty phase, the trial court instructed the jury on the possible punishments for the three crimes. The jury was instructed that rape in the first degree was punishable by not less than five years, but up to life in prison; that sodomy in the first degree was punishable by not less than five years, but up to life in prison; and that sexual exploitation of a minor was subject to a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of fifteen years in prison. In the State's argument during the penalty phase, it requested that the jury sentence Winters to thirty-five years on Count I, to thirty-five years on Count III, and to ten years on Count V. Winters asked the jury to impose the minimum sentence on all three counts. Specifically, Winters argued:
The minimum sentences for all three of these counts is five years. I ask you to consider those minimum sentences. It's up to the court whether they are run concurrent or consecutive. They will probably be consecutive. If you give him the minimum sentence, he'll get a fifteen-year sentence, most likely.
[Tr. 563-64] (Emphasis added.)
The jury proceeded to sentencing deliberations, during which it sent the trial court eight questions. The final two questions were written on the same form, and they read:
[L.F. Doc. 6, p. 7] The trial court and the parties went on the record to discuss the appropriate response, and the following exchange occurred:
[Tr. 568-70] (Emphasis added.) The trial court's answer to the jury as to the first question read, [L.F. Doc. 6, p. 7] The exchange continued, in reference to the jury's second question:
[Tr. 570-71] (Emphasis added.) The trial court's answer to the jury's second question read, "THE JURY MAY RECOMMEND WHETHER THE SENTENCES ARE CONSECUTIVE OR CONCURRENT." [L.F. Doc. 6, p. 7]
On October 9, 2019, the jury returned its sentencing verdicts to the trial court on three separate verdict forms, each of which asked the jury to "assess and declare the punishment" for each stated count. As to Count I, rape in the first degree, the jury assessed a punishment of "IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 10 YEARS[.]" [L.F. Doc. 7, p. 6] As to Count III, sodomy in the first degree, the jury also assessed a punishment of "IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 10 YEARS[.]" [Id. at 7] As to Count V, sexual exploitation of a minor, the jury assessed a punishment of "IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 5 YEARS[.]" [Id. at 8] The verdict forms did not provide for a specific space where the jury could recommend whether the sentences should run concurrent or consecutive. However, at the bottom of each verdict form, the jury wrote, "THE JURY RECOMMENDS THE SENTENCES RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH [THE OTHER TWO COUNTS]." [Id. at 6-8]
On November 25, 2019, Winters filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative, for a New Trial ("Motion for New Trial"). It did not contain any of the claims of error which comprise this appeal. On December 5, 2019, the parties convened for Winters's sentencing hearing. Prior to sentencing, the trial court heard Winters's previously filed Motion for New Trial and it was denied. As to sentencing, Winters argued the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice’ has occurred." State v. Winters , 623 S.W.3d 746, 754 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Campbell , 600 S.W.3d at 788-89 ). "If error is found, then we must determine if the error actually resulted......
-
State v. Burros
...this error has not been preserved for appellate review. State v. Walter , 479 S.W.3d 118, 122-23 (Mo. banc 2016) ; State v. Winters , 623 S.W.3d 746, 753 (Mo. App. 2021). We generally do not review unpreserved claims of error. State v. Brandolese , 601 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Mo. banc 2020).Nevert......
-
State v. Williams
...the circuit court proposes, "any claim of error related to the trial court's action is affirmatively waived[.]" State v. Winters , 623 S.W.3d 746, 753 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Point 2 also fails, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS JACK A. L. GOODM......
-
Opponents of Cooper Cnty. CAFOs, LLC v. Mo. Dep't of Natural Res. (In re PVC Mgmt. II, LLC)
... ... (Point II); (2) the Permit authorizes the placement of pollutants where they are reasonably certain to cause pollution of waters of the State (Point III); and (3) issuance of the Permit was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, an abuse of discretion, and was unsupported by competent and ... ...