Lewis v. State
112 So. 3d 1092
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Lewis convicted by jury in Hinds County of two counts armed robbery and one count felon possessing a firearm.
- Robbery occurred July 2, 2010, with victims Weekly and Edwards identifying Lewis and a handgun found in the vehicle.
- BOLO issued matching the robbers' description; Officer Moore stopped a dark-colored Camry with Lewis driving.
- Painstaking identification: victims identified Lewis in court; Lewis was linked to a firearm and a straight razor from the vehicle.
- Trial court denied relief on post-trial motions; Lewis appeals challenging sufficiency of the evidence and potential double jeopardy.
- Sentences: each armed robbery count 30 years concurrent; felon-in-possession 10 years plus 10-year firearm enhancement consecutive to counts I–III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient for armed robbery? | Lewis argues no proof of robbery elements. | State asserts sufficient identification and weapon use. | Yes; evidence supports armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Was there sufficient proof of possession of a firearm by a felon? | Insufficient proof of actual possession; trial did not address dominion. | Driver had dominion/constructive possession of handgun. | Yes; constructively in Lewis's dominion; insufficient procedural bar noted. |
| Does the consecutive enhancement violate double jeopardy? | Separate sentencing statute improperly increases punishment. | Enhancement does not create a separate offense. | No; enhancements do not trigger double jeopardy; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard deference to jury verdict; Jackson v. Virginia standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
- Foster v. State, 928 So.2d 873 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (waiver preserved by renewal of directed verdict at end of evidence)
- Holland v. State, 656 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1995) (renewal requirement preserves sufficiency issue)
- Davis v. State, 817 So.2d 593 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of constructive possession)
- Bogan v. State, 754 So.2d 1289 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (credibility factors in identification)
- Rubenstein v. State, 941 So.2d 735 (Miss. 2006) (DNA testing not required absent defense aid)
- Mayers v. State, 42 So.3d 33 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (enhancement statutes not double jeopardy)