Mario Ragland v. State of Mississippi
235 So. 3d 1387
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Around 3:00 a.m. on Nov. 17, 2014, Krystal employee Tamieka Manning was robbed at gunpoint; surveillance showed a masked black male (later identified as Elbert Nichols) take cash and order employees on the floor.
- Olive Branch officer David Rumbarger stopped a speeding vehicle about five to ten minutes after the robbery; Mario Ragland was the driver and Nichols the passenger.
- Inside the vehicle police found a Krystal money bag and envelope, a Colt .38 revolver, ammunition, surgical masks, and blue latex gloves; Ragland was wearing latex gloves.
- Ragland denied knowledge of the robbery, claiming Nichols picked him up at an apartment after midnight and asked him to drive; police testimony and timing evidence made that account implausible.
- A jury convicted Ragland of armed robbery (as an aider/abettor) and conspiracy to commit armed robbery; Ragland appealed raising sufficiency/weight-of-evidence, challenges to accomplice jury instructions, and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Ragland's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery (aiding and abetting) | Presence in car and items found do not prove aiding/abetting; reasonable hypothesis he was picked up after robbery | Timeline, proximity, and incriminating items in car support inference Ragland was with Nichols before/ during robbery and aided/abetted | Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, circumstantial evidence permitted inference of aiding/abetting and conspiracy |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict against overwhelming weight; jury should have accepted Ragland's account | Jury properly weighed credibility; evidence did not preponderate against verdict | Affirmed — no unconscionable injustice; credibility and weight were for jury |
| Validity of accomplice/aiding-and-abetting jury instructions (and cross-referencing with conspiracy instruction) | Instructions unsupported or defective under Milano; cross-references could mislead and allow conviction for robbery solely on conspiracy finding | Instructions, read together, correctly set out elements and Milano concerns were cured by proper elemental instruction | Affirmed — no plain error; instructions read together were not misleading |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object and for submitting instruction | Trial counsel should have objected to State instructions and not submitted defendant accomplice instruction | No error in instructions; counsel’s actions not deficient based on record; ineffectiveness better suited to post-conviction review | Dismissed without prejudice to post-conviction relief — record insufficient on direct appeal to resolve ineffectiveness claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cotton v. State, 144 So.3d 137 (Miss. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68 (Miss. 1985) (reversal standard when evidence favors defendant on an element)
- Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 927 (Miss. 2008) (standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence/new-trial motions)
- McRee v. State, 732 So.2d 246 (Miss. 1999) (circumstantial-evidence—reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Corbin v. State, 585 So.2d 713 (Miss. 1991) (fingerprint evidence insufficient to prove entry and intent)
- Shepherd v. State, 403 So.2d 1287 (Miss. 1981) (suspicion insufficient to sustain conviction)
- McLain v. State, 24 So.2d 15 (Miss. 1946) (presence evidence alone may not prove guilt of particular crime)
- Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss. 2001) (adoption of pattern aiding-and-abetting instruction and cure of defective instructions when elemental instructions properly given)
- Brazile v. State, 514 So.2d 325 (Miss. 1987) (reversible error where aiding/abetting instruction was unsupported and misleading)