Jerami Williams v. State of Mississippi ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2016-KA-00356-COA
JERAMI WILLIAMS A/K/A JERAMI WARDELL APPELLANT
WILLIAMS A/K/A JERAMI W. WILLIAMS
A/K/A JERAMY WARDELL WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/20/2014
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. FORREST A. JOHNSON JR.
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: ADAMS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOSEPH SCOTT HEMLEBEN
DISTRICT ATTORNEY: RONNIE LEE HARPER
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A
DWELLING AND SENTENCED AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER TO TWENTY-FIVE
YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY
FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/07/2017
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE IRVING, P.J., CARLTON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ.
CARLTON, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. An Adams County jury convicted Jerami Williams of burglary of a dwelling, and the
Adams County Circuit Court sentenced Jerami as a habitual offender to serve twenty-five
years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). See Miss. Code
Ann. § 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015). Jerami now appeals his conviction and sentence and asserts
that his trial counsel was ineffective, thus violating his constitutional right to a fair trial. We
decline to address the merits of Jerami’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on direct
appeal in this case, and we accordingly affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS
¶2. On July 8, 2013, Christopher Williams awoke around approximately 1:30 a.m. to
discover two men kicking in one of the doors to the home he shared with his father.
Christopher testified that he recognized both men: Travon Williams, who lived in
Christopher’s neighborhood, and another man, who he recognized as a former coworker of
his father. Christopher did not know the man’s name at the time. Christopher testified that
the two men entered the house, unaware of his presence. Christopher then left the house
unnoticed and walked down the street to his cousin’s house to call the police.
¶3. Christopher stated that the police arrived ten minutes later, and he then returned to his
house where he witnessed police officers enter his home and walk out with Travon Williams.
While standing outside of his house, Christopher observed a green Mitsubishi automobile
drive past the house, and he alerted the police about the vehicle. Christopher testified that
he could not see inside of the vehicle due to the tinted glass.
¶4. Christopher provided a statement to the police officers. They showed Christopher a
photo lineup, where Christopher identified Jerami as the other burglar whose name he did
not know. At trial, Christopher identified Jerami as one of the men he witnessed breaking
into his house.
2
¶5. Officer Paulesha McBride of the Natchez Police Department responded to the call
regarding the burglary on July 8, 2013. Officer McBride testified that she and several other
officers entered Christopher’s home and encountered Travon hiding in a closet. As a result
of questioning Travon, the officers discovered the identity of the second man suspected of
breaking into the house: Jerami. Officer McBride further testified that based on information
provided by Travon, the officers began looking for a green two-door car.
¶6. Officer McBride stated that while en route back to the police station, she observed an
unattended green automobile parked at an Exxon gas station which fit the description of the
vehicle described by Travon. Officer McBride stated that the vehicle’s tag was registered
to Jerami.
¶7. Alexis Davis testified as a witness for the defense. Alexis provided that on the
evening of July 8, 2013, she received a phone call from Jerami around midnight asking her
to pick him up near Fat Mama’s restaurant because his car had broken down. Alexis stated
that she and her boyfriend, Kareem Baldwin, picked up Jerami, and afterwards the three of
them drove around and smoked marijuana. Alexis testified that while out riding around and
smoking, they drove past the Exxon where Jerami left his car and they observed a police
officer around the car. Alexis explained that they did not stop because “Kareem [was] on
curfew” and not supposed to be out of the house at that hour. However, on
cross-examination, Alexis testified that she could not recall the precise time that she picked
up Jerami from Fat Mama’s, agreeing that it could have been midnight or 3:00 a.m., or any
time during the night. The State also questioned Alexis about a written statement that
3
Kareem provided to an investigator on July 10, 2013, that she had also signed. At trial,
Alexis confirmed that the statement was correct when she signed it. In the statement,
Kareem claimed that it was Jerami, and not Kareem, who did not want to stop at the Exxon
due to the police presence.
¶8. Jerami testified in his own defense, stating that on the evening of July 8, 2013, his car
began “acting up,” so he pulled into the Exxon and called Alexis and Kareem to bring him
jumper cables. Jemari stated that he explained to the Exxon store clerk that he needed to
leave his car in the parking lot temporarily. Jerami also testified that Alexis and Kareem
picked him up at the Exxon, and not Fat Mama’s, as Alexis previously testified. Regarding
the contradictory testimony, Jerami explained that Alexis “was kind of in and out” that
evening.
¶9. Jerami testified that after Alexis and Kareem picked him up, he shared some synthetic
marijuana with them to show his appreciation. Jerami stated that the three rode around and
smoked marijuana. Jerami explained that because they were smoking marijuana, and because
Kareem was on probation, they did not stop when they drove past the Exxon and saw
policemen around his car. Jerami testified that Alexis and Kareem drove him home instead.
When asked what time he was dropped off, Jerami responded that he “really didn’t look at
the clock, but [knew] it had to have been between 2:30, maybe close to 3:00” in the morning.
¶10. The jury found Jerami guilty of burglary of a dwelling. Following a hearing, the trial
court determined that Jerami constituted a habitual offender pursuant to section 99-19-81.
The trial court accordingly sentenced Jerami to serve twenty-five years in the custody of the
4
MDOC, with no possibility of his sentence being reduced or suspended, and no possibility
of parole or probation. The trial court also ordered Jerami to pay all court costs and fees,
including a $200 prosecution fee. On November 26, 2014, Jerami filed a motion for a new
trial, which the trial court denied. Jerami now directly appeals his conviction and sentence.
DISCUSSION
¶11. Jerami argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Sixth
Amendment and Article 3, Section 26 of the Mississippi Constitution for: not requesting an
alibi instruction; informing the jury during opening statements that Jerami had other
convictions; and eliciting testimony from Jerami about his prior convictions.
¶12. The Mississippi Supreme Court has “reiterate[d] that, generally,
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are more appropriately brought during
post[]conviction proceedings.” Dartez v. State, 177 So. 3d 420, 422-23 (¶18) (Miss. 2015)
(citing Archer v. State, 986 So. 2d 951, 955 (¶15) (Miss. 2008)). The supreme court
explained that
[a]n appellate court is limited to the trial-court record in its review of the
claim(s), and there may be instances in which insufficient evidence and/or
information exists within the record to address the claim adequately. In such
a case, the appropriate procedure is to deny relief, preserving the defendant's
right to argue the issue through a petition for post[]conviction relief (PCR).
Id. at 423 (¶10) (internal citation omitted). However, an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim can be addressed on direct appeal when “(1) the record affirmatively shows
ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is
adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the
5
findings of fact of the trial judge.” Johnson v. State, 196 So. 3d 973, 975 (¶7) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2015); see also Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832, 841 (Miss. 1983). In the case before us,
both parties did not stipulate that the record is adequate for this Court to make a finding on
direct appeal. Thus, the proper inquiry is whether the record affirmatively shows that Jerami
was denied effective assistance of counsel. See M.R.A.P. 22(b).
¶13. In determining whether the record affirmatively shows ineffective assistance of
counsel, we turn to the precedent of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96 (1984),
for guidance. In Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-96, the United States Supreme Court set forth
a two-pronged test that a defendant must meet to prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim: the “defendant must prove that his attorney’s performance was deficient, and
that the deficiency was so substantial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” Dartez, 177
So. 3d at 423 (¶19). To determine whether the counsel’s performance was both deficient and
prejudicial, this Court examines the totality of the circumstances, keeping in mind that “a
strong but rebuttable presumption [exists] that [a] counsel’s conduct falls within the wide
range of reasonable professional assistance.” Id.; see also Braggs v. State, 121 So. 3d 269,
273 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (“[A] presumption exists that an attorney’s performance
falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and that the decisions made
by trial counsel are strategic.”). Furthermore, the decisions by counsel “whether or not to file
certain motions, call certain witnesses, ask certain questions, or make certain objections fall
within the ambit of trial strategy.” Braggs, 121 So. 3d at 273 (¶11). Accordingly, this Court
will find a counsel’s performance deficient “[o]nly where it is reasonably probable that, but
6
for the attorney’s errors, the outcome would have been different.” Dartez, 177 So. 3d at 423
(¶19).
¶14. After reviewing the record herein and applying the standard set forth in Strickland,
we find that the record before us reflects no affirmative showing of ineffective assistance of
counsel on its face. Jerami’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is more appropriately
brought during postconviction proceedings, and we therefore deny relief without prejudice
as to Jerami’s right to pursue this claim during postconviction proceedings. See Braggs, 121
So. 3d at 273 (¶11). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶15. THE JUDGMENT OF THE ADAMS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF
CONVICTION OF BURGLARY OF A DWELLING AND SENTENCE AS A
HABITUAL OFFENDER OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR
PAROLE OR PROBATION, IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE
ASSESSED TO ADAMS COUNTY.
LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., ISHEE, FAIR, GREENLEE AND
WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR. BARNES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE
RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. WILSON, J., CONCURS
IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
7