Williams v. State, 2011 Miss. App. LEXIS 758

Background

Derrick T. Williams was convicted by a Lauderdale County jury of capital murder, armed robbery, and theft of a motor vehicle.
The circuit court sentenced Williams to life for capital murder, twenty years for armed robbery, and ten years for theft, with the armed-robbery and capital-murder sentences running concurrently and the theft sentence to run consecutively.
The State did not seek the death penalty; Mississippi law then limited capital-murder sentencing to life without parole, effectively removing jury sentencing options.
On appeal, Williams challenges multiple trial rulings, including double-jeopardy for the armed-robbery underlying murder, jury-instruction issues, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing procedure.
The court reverses and renders on the armed-robbery count due to double-jeopardy concerns, affirming the capital-murder and theft judgments.
The judgment requires acquittal on armed robbery while affirming capital murder and theft convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy from underlying-robbery	Williams argues armed robbery underpinned capital murder, creating multiple punishments for the same offense.	State contends no double-jeopardy violation in the pairing of charges under the statute and indictment.	Armed robbery underlying capital murder violates double jeopardy; reverse and render on armed-robbery count.
Indictment sufficiency for capital murder	Berryhill-like requirement to specify underlying acts of armed robbery.	Milano/Turner logic avoids need to list all robbery elements in an indictment for capital murder.	No merit to indictment defect; proper under current authority.
Sufficiency of the evidence for capital murder	Evidence shows Williams and McMillon killed during a robbery; malice not required to prove capital murder under robbery.	Williams concedes insufficient direct intent to kill; argues manslaughter attributable.	Evidence supports capital-murder verdict; sufficient beyond reasonable doubt.
Jury instructions	Court refused several defense jury instructions; dominant theory not adequately presented.	Many proffered instructions were cumulative or improper; court acted within discretion.	No reversible error; instructions given were proper and non-cumulative; rejections were within discretion.
Sentencing procedure for capital murder	Court should conduct a sentencing hearing with parole considerations and potential death sentence.	Because the State did not seek the death penalty, life without parole was the only possible sentence; no extra hearing needed.	Correct: life without parole was the only permissible sentence under the circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Berryhill, 703 So.2d 250 (Miss. 1997) (requires specificity for underlying acts in certain capital-murder indictments)
Milano v. State, 790 So.2d 179 (Miss. 2001) (declines Berryhill extension to robbery-based capital crimes)
Turner v. State, 732 So.2d 937 (Miss. 1999) (robbing as underpinning capital murder not requiring exhaustive listing in indictment)
Fuselier v. State, 654 So.2d 519 (Miss. 1995) (double-jeopardy exception for fundamental rights on appeal)
Jordan v. State, 728 So.2d 1088 (Miss. 1998) (second conviction in same proceeding constitutes impermissible punishment)
Pham v. State, 716 So.2d 1100 (Miss. 1998) (discusses capital-murder sentencing framework under statute 99-19-101 and parole implications)
Jones v. State, 710 So.2d 870 (Miss. 1998) (aider-and-abettor principles in proving capital-murder elements)
Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for insufficiency and weight-of-evidence review)
Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099 (Miss. 1999) (adequacy of record for ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
Gilmer v. State, 955 So.2d 829 (Miss. 2007) (de novo review for indictment defects)
Lett v. State, 902 So.2d 630 (Miss. 2005) (prohibition on defining reasonable doubt for juries)
Agnew v. State, 783 So.2d 699 (Miss. 2001) (scope of jury-instruction review and fair-evidence coverage)
Sneed v. State, 31 So.3d 33 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (aider-and-abettor doctrine in liability)
Rowland v. State, 42 So.3d 503 (Miss. 2010) (double-jeopardy analysis procedural considerations)