Jacob Reynolds v. State of Mississippi
227 So. 3d 428
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jacob Reynolds and accomplices robbed a Dollar General at closing; two employees (Lakisha Matthews and Audria Brown) and customers hid; robbers used a handgun and a baseball bat; ~$100 was taken from the store safe and register area.
- Jacob was indicted on two counts of armed robbery (one per employee/victim) and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (specific Llama .380).
- At trial the State amended the property amount to $100; Jacob stipulated to being a prior felon for the felon-in-possession count; the jury acquitted him on the felon-in-possession count but convicted him on both armed-robbery counts.
- Jacob was sentenced to concurrent 31-year terms and appealed, raising: retroactive misjoinder (prejudice from felon-possession evidence), insufficiency/weight of evidence as to Count II (Audria Brown), and double-jeopardy (two convictions for the same money).
- The Court reviewed the record (surveillance, witness testimony, accomplice plea testimony, recovered firearm in car search, and stipulation to prior felony) and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reynolds) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive misjoinder: whether acquittal on felon-in-possession requires new trial on robbery counts | Joinder prejudiced Reynolds because evidence of prior felony (admitted to prove felon-in-possession) unfairly influenced robbery convictions | Doctrine applies when vacated count was invalid and produced prejudicial evidence; here felon-possession was not legally invalid and jury simply acquitted on that count; limiting instruction and stipulation mitigated prejudice | Denied — no retroactive misjoinder; Reynolds failed to show clear and compelling prejudice |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence as to Count II (did robbery take property from Audria’s person or presence?) | No property was taken from Audria’s register or while she was physically present (she fled); hence insufficient to convict for robbery of her person/presence | Presence means proximity/control such that victim, but for intimidation, could have prevented taking; evidence showed Audria was in position to prevent the taking had she not fled | Affirmed — sufficient evidence and verdict not against overwhelming weight of evidence |
| Double jeopardy: two robbery convictions for taking the same money | Two convictions punish the same offense because the same money was taken once | Different offenses because each robbery has a different victim — Blockburger test satisfied because each count requires a distinct element (different victim) | Affirmed — no double jeopardy violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 37 So. 3d 717 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (adopting retroactive misjoinder doctrine and requiring clear and compelling prejudice for relief)
- Towner v. State, 812 So. 2d 1109 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (defining “presence” as proximity/control and permitting multiple robbery convictions for one taking when different victims are robbed)
- Cowart v. State, 178 So. 3d 651 (Miss. 2015) (elements of armed robbery)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether multiple convictions constitute the same offense)