Watkins v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 180 |
| Citation | 565 So.2d 1227 |
| Parties | Dewayne Keith WATKINS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jill Simpson, Rainsville, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Gilda B. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Dewayne Keith Watkins, was convicted of robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-41, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act to life in the state penitentiary.
The evidence tended to show that on the morning of November 14, 1987, at approximately 10:30 a.m., the appellant entered Goodwin Grocery in Bessemer, Alabama. Margie Goodwin was tending the store that morning. The appellant asked Mrs. Goodwin if they carried antifreeze, to which Mrs. Goodwin replied that they did and directed him to where it was located. The appellant got the antifreeze, set it on the counter, and went back to the drink cooler and got a soft drink. Next, the appellant asked for some Kool cigarettes and a pink disposable Bic lighter. The appellant then paid for these items.
As the appellant was walking out the door, he quickly turned back around, jumped over the counter with a gun in his hand, and told Mrs. Goodwin to get on the floor. The appellant tied Mrs. Goodwin's hands behind her back with black shoelaces and then demanded that she tell him how to open the cash register. Mrs. Goodwin told the appellant to hit the green button and after he did so, the appellant robbed Mrs. Goodwin of an estimated $270 cash and $70 in food stamps, and he also took a small handgun that was regularly kept in the store under the counter.
Even though Mrs. Goodwin was still tied up on the floor, she was able to watch the appellant leave. He got into a black car with red strips and turned onto Flint Hill Road headed toward Fourth Avenue. His car tag number was Georgia FKB-158.
Mrs. Goodwin freed herself and immediately called the police to report the incident. Officer Johnny Guin of the Bessemer Police Department was working patrol when the call came in concerning the robbery. When Guin heard the dispatch, he drove to the 19th Street entrance ramp to Interstate 59 and parked his patrol car beside the ramp. After being at that location for five minutes, a black car with red stripes and a Georgia license plate passed by. The car was occupied by one black male. Officer Guin radioed headquarters and told them that he had spotted the car. He then turned on his blue lights and siren and a chase ensued.
At some point during the chase, the appellant jumped out of his moving car and ran. The car came to a halt after it crashed into a house. Officer Guin inspected the abandoned car and found a .44 revolver.
Deputy Mike Williams of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department heard the dispatch and proceeded to the area to assist in the search. Deputy Williams spotted the appellant on Sixth Avenue; however, when the appellant saw Deputy Williams he took off running through some nearby woods. Deputy Williams lost sight of the appellant in the wooded area.
The appellant ran into the home of Tommy and Mamie Watkins. He caught all of the family members by surprise. The appellant ran into LaSonya Walker's bedroom and started taking money out of his pockets and throwing it on the bed. Ms. Walker ran out of the bedroom and into the kitchen, where she got a knife to protect herself.
By this time, a number of law enforcement officials were in the neighborhood. Mr. Watkins went outside and told a police officer that the appellant was in his home. He then went back inside and told the appellant that it would be best to turn himself in. The appellant surrendered and was taken into custody.
Later that day, while Ms. Walker was cleaning her room, she stripped her bed of its sheets. That is when "everything just fell out." A gun, food stamps, and cash had apparently been placed under Ms. Walker's mattress. The police were called and the evidence was recovered.
The appellant raises six issues on appeal.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury during the trial court's opening statement that both sides would be objecting and that these objections did not necessarily mean that either party was trying to keep out evidence or hide evidence. However, no legal authority was cited to support this contention.
This court held, in Johnson v. State, 500 So.2d 494 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (citing Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037 (Ala.Cr.App.1984):
Johnson, supra, 500 So.2d at 498.
Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.
Second, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his objection based on the lack of foundation for a chain of custody as to the fingerprint card that was made when the appellant was arrested.
Bertie Howlett, a fingerprint technician with the Bessemer Police Department, took fingerprints from the appellant on November 14, 1987. After taking the prints, Ms. Howlett filed the print card in her office. This is a secured area of the Bessemer Police Department which stays locked, thus restricting all unauthorized entrances.
David George, another fingerprint technician with the Bessemer Police Department, compared latent prints lifted from a Mello-Yello bottle found in the appellant's car with the known prints of the appellant taken by Ms. Howlett. Mr. George found the latent prints to be an identical match to the known prints. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the known print had been tampered with.
In Magwood v. State, 494 So.2d 124 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), affirmed, 494 So.2d 154 (Ala.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 599, 93 L.Ed.2d 599 (1986), this court held:
Magwood, supra, 494 So.2d at 144.
Thus, no error occurred.
Third, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. More specifically, the appellant argues that the State failed to prove the three elements of first degree robbery.
The appellant's reasoning behind this contention is that the store clerk, who was lying on the floor during most of the offense, was the only person to actually "witness" the robbery. All of the other evidence presented was of a circumstantial nature. This, the appellant asserts, was not enough to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty" the guilt of the appellant.
A person commits robbery in the first degree if "in the course of committing a theft he ... uses force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance," and he "is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument" or "causes serious physical injury to another." Johnson v. State, 473 So.2d 607 (Ala.Crim.App.1985).
After a careful review of the facts before us, we are of the opinion that the State carried its burden of proving the three elements of robbery in the first degree. A further recitation of the details of the crime would serve no useful purpose. The testimony of the victim alone was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of robbery. Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 816 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd, 525 So.2d 820 (Ala.1985), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 834, 109 S.Ct. 94, 102 L.Ed.2d 70 (1988); Simpson v. State, 401 So.2d 263 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 265 (Ala.1981).
Moreover, it is not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence. Walker v. State, 416 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). As a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...aff'd, 494 So.2d 154 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 599, 93 L.Ed.2d 599 (1986). See also Watkins v. State, 565 So.2d 1227 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). "Chain of custody requirements do not apply with the same force to items of evidence which are unique and identifiable in themsel......
-
Johnson v. State
...well settled that ‘[t]he testimony of the victim alone [is] sufficient to establish a prima facie case of robbery.’ Watkins v. State, 565 So.2d 1227, 1231 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).”). The Alabama Supreme Court held in Ex parte Carter, 889 So.2d 528 (Ala.2004), that an instruction on circumstanti......
-
Whitley v. State
...of an additional "mistaken self-defense" charge, the appellant did not preserve that argument. Turrentine, supra; Watkins v. State, 565 So.2d 1227 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). Moreover, "mistaken self-defense" does not authorize by itself, a charge on manslaughter. See commentary to § 13A-6-4 under h......
-
Kelley v. State
...2216, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982)). "[I]t is not the province of this court to reweigh the evidence presented at trial." Watkins v. State, 565 So.2d 1227, 1231 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Conflicting evidence is a matter for the jury's consideration. Smith v. State, 583 So.2d 990 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. deni......