277 So.3d 532
Miss.2019Background
- On Dec. 15, 2014, Lennon Thomas entered a Hattiesburg convenience store wearing dark clothing, gloves, and a bandana, and carrying a pistol. The cashier, Nga Tran, had just returned from the bank and was handling approximately $80,000 in cash.
- Thomas ran behind the cashier’s counter, grabbed Nga by the neck, pressed the pistol to her head, and demanded the other owner, Truc, drop his gun. Nga offered the money tray.
- Truc ran from the store toward the nearby police department to seek help; Thomas chased, beat Nga with the pistol, shot Truc in the back in the parking lot, then shot Nga in the back, and fled on foot.
- Police pursued and captured Thomas shortly after; his discarded dark clothing found near the woods was DNA-linked to him, and Nga identified him in a photo lineup. No gun was recovered and no money was taken.
- A grand jury indicted Thomas for armed robbery (Count I) and two counts of aggravated assault (Counts II & III). A jury convicted him on all counts; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences. Thomas appealed, challenging only the sufficiency of evidence for attempted armed robbery and claiming his Count I sentence should run concurrently with Count III.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Thomas's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted armed robbery | Evidence (masked, armed entry behind counter while cashier handled $80,000; threats; offering money; force used) permits inference he intended to take property and made a direct but ineffectual act; failure to take money was due to interruption | His conduct showed only an intent to assault the owners, not to commit robbery; no money was taken | Affirmed. Jury could infer intent to rob from acts and circumstances; all elements of attempt satisfied. |
| Whether Count I sentence should run concurrent with Count III | Sentencing order and oral pronouncement show judge intended consecutive sentences | Thomas (pro se) argued the judge intended Count I concurrent with Count III | Affirmed. Trial judge unambiguously ordered consecutive sentences; no ambiguity to construe in defendant's favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. State, 144 So. 3d 137 (Miss. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to State)
- Hughes v. State, 983 So. 2d 270 (Miss. 2008) (intent and attempt elements; proving intent from surrounding facts)
- Ryals v. State, 305 So. 2d 354 (Miss. 1974) (guilty intent may be inferred from totality of circumstances)
- Broomfield v. State, 878 So. 2d 207 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (attempted robbery can be proven even if no property was taken)
- Shanklin v. State, 290 So. 2d 625 (Miss. 1974) (intent is a jury question to be gleaned from facts)
- Shinn v. State, 74 So. 3d 901 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (sentencing ambiguity requires construing in defendants favor)
- Anderson v. State, 288 So. 2d 852 (Miss. 1974) (ambiguous sentencing orders construed for defendant)