Randy Charles Wilson v. State of Mississippi, 194 So. 3d 855

Background

On April 2, 2012, Paul Powers observed a blue-and-white pickup towing a 16-foot tandem-axle utility trailer from his neighbors’ property, followed the truck while calling 911, and later identified the same two occupants near the trailer after law enforcement intercepted the vehicle in Warren County.
Warren County investigators arrested Randy Charles Wilson (passenger) and Timothy Allen Wilson (driver); the trailer was identified as belonging to Randy and Pauline Vessel and valued at about $1,400.
A grand jury indicted both brothers for receiving stolen property; both were convicted by a jury after a September 2014 trial. Randy Wilson’s conviction and 10-year sentence (3 years to serve; remainder suspended with post-release supervision) are the subjects of this appeal.
Randy raised five issues on appeal: (1) legality of Instruction S-4 (prima facie presumption from theft to knowledge); (2) Instruction S-3 (burden regarding alibi); (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; (4) cumulative error; and (5) whether his sentence was illegal under post-offense statutory amendment.
The Court affirmed conviction and sentence, rejecting claims of plain error and ineffective assistance for failure to object to jury instructions or closing argument, and held the trial court properly applied the sentencing statute in effect at the time of the offense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Instruction S-4 (presumption that stealing property implies knowledge it was stolen)	S-4 impermissibly shifts burden on element of knowledge; denies due process (relies on Reith).	S-4 tracked §97-17-70(3)(b) and correctly stated statutory law; no plain error.	Affirmed — instruction accurately stated statutory law; no manifest miscarriage of justice; counsel not ineffective.
2. Instruction S-3 (alibi burden)	S-3 improperly shifted burden to defendants to disprove alibi.	S-3 correctly told jury the State need only prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is not required to disprove an alibi.	Affirmed — instruction consistent with controlling caselaw; no plain error; counsel not ineffective.
3. Prosecutor’s closing argument	Prosecutor argued facts not in evidence, misstated hearsay rule, and expressed personal belief in guilt.	Statements were responsive to defense closing and based on testimony; occasional phrasing (“we believe,” “as we are”) was not repeated or prejudicial.	Affirmed — no undue prejudice; remarks either in evidence or harmless; counsel’s failure to object not ineffective.
4. Cumulative error	Even if each error is minor, combined errors denied a fair trial.	There were no individual reversible errors to cumulate.	Affirmed — absent individual errors, cumulative-error claim fails.
5. Sentencing under amended statute	Statute amended before sentencing reduced maximum from 10 to 5 years; appellant argued Daniels requires applying the lesser penalty.	§99-19-1 preserves sentencing scheme in effect when the crime was committed; West/Daniels overruled to extent inconsistent.	Affirmed (majority) — trial court properly applied statute effective at time of offense; dissent would have remanded for resentencing under the amended statute.

Key Cases Cited

Reith v. State, 135 So.3d 862 (Miss. 2014) (instructions that create impermissible presumptions of intent are prohibited)
Tran v. State, 681 So.2d 514 (Miss. 1996) (discussion of problematic jury instructions)
Neal v. State, 15 So.3d 388 (Miss. 2009) (failure to object to jury instructions at trial procedurally bars appellate review)
Victory v. State, 83 So.3d 370 (Miss. 2012) (instructions that fairly announce law and create no injustice are not reversible error)
Holmes v. State, 481 So.2d 319 (Miss. 1985) (state is not required to disprove an alibi; burden remains to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289 (Miss. 1994) (limits on prosecutorial expression of personal belief; improper repeated "I" statements can suggest undisclosed knowledge)
Allen v. State, 440 So.2d 544 (Miss. 1983) (trial court may impose any sentence authorized by statute as it read on date of offense)
State ex rel. Pittman v. Ladner, 512 So.2d 1271 (Miss. 1987) (contract/vesting analysis and treatment of statutory changes in a different context)
West v. State, 725 So.2d 872 (Miss. 1998) (held amended, lesser penalty applies to proceedings after effective date; later limited by this opinion)
Daniels v. State, 742 So.2d 1140 (Miss. 1999) (held trial court must apply lesser penalty if amendment takes effect before sentencing; abrogated in part by majority here)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)