I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - KA- 0 0 8 0 7 - S CT DENNI ST AY L OR
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 07/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. DAV I D H. S TRONG, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LI NCOLN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : W
. GLEN N W ATTS S COTT S TUART DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : DEE B ATES NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 02/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n A pr i l 7, 2010, D enni s T ayl orw as c onvi ct ed by a Li ncol n C ounty j ury of one count of r obbery pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 73 and one c ountof cons pi r acy pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 97- 1- 1( i )
. T ayl orw as s ent ence d t o f i f t een ye ar s , t hr ee
s us pended, f

orr obbery, and f

i ve yea r s , al l f

i ve s us pended, f

orcons pi r acy. T he se nt ence s
w er e s ett o run cons ecut i vel y. A r gui ng the ver di ct s w er e aga i ns tthe w ei ghtand s uf f i ci ency
o f th e e v i d e n c e , Ta y l o ra p p e a l e d t o th i s Co u r t . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m.

### Bled soe (Nussie) andSmith (Bubb lehead ) will be referred to by nickname to avo id 1 

### conf usi on, a s they arere fe rr ed t o by nic knam e throughout theproc ee ding. 2 F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW ¶2. O n M ay 15, 2009, D enni s T ayl or , L akes ha B l eds oe ( N us s i e) , and Em m anuel Sm i th, J r . (Bubbl ehea d) w er e i ndi ct ed f orrobbe ry of J & B H andy M art , I nc. ( H andy M art ) , l ocat ed 1 i n Brookha ven, M i s s i s s i ppi , i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 73, and cons pi r acy t o r ob the H andy M arti n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 1- 1. ¶3. T he r obbery occurr ed on D ece m ber 29, 2008. T he H andy M art cl erks on duty dur i ng th e ro b b e ry , T e q u ier ra W e lls a n d H o lly S u tto n , tes tified to w h a t tran sp ire d o n th a t d a te. W e lls
s ai d s he had turned on the gas pum p f orseve r al i ndi vi dual s , and af t erget t i ng gas , they dr ove of f w i thoutpayi ng. L at erthatday, thr ee i ndi vi dual s , w hom s he r ecogni zed as the ones w ho had dr i ven of

f w i tho ut payi ng f

orgas , came i ns i de the H andy M art . W el l s s t epped out s i de i n an ef f or tt o s ee thei rcar , buti tw as noti n vi ew , s o s he w entback i ns i de the s t or e. ¶4. Shor t l y af

t erent er i ng t he H andy M art , one of t he i ndi vi dual s w entt o t he back of t he
s t or e t o getbeer , w hi l e the othertw o i ndi vi dual s w ai t ed atthe f r ontof the s t or e. O ne of

the ind ividu als w alke d aro u n d the c o rne r w h ere the clerk s w ere stan d ing a n d sa id, “If w e d idn ’t gi ve hi m the money t hathe w as goi ng t o t ake ourl i ves . ” W el l s t es t i f i ed thats he and Sut t on f i r s tre f us ed t o gi ve hi m m oney, butul t i m at el y opened t he cas h dra w er , beca us e the man sa i d, “I ’ m notgoi ng t o t el l you agai n. O pen thatdr aw ernow oryou and the othergi r l w i l l notl i ve t o s ee the nextday. ” The m an t ook t he money w hen Sut t on opened the ca s h r egi s t er , and the th re e ro b b e rs le ft th e sto re . W e lls tes tified sh e g a v e th e th re e in d iv id u a ls th e m o n e y o n ly b e c a u se sh e w a s s c a re d . S h e q u it h e r jo b a fte r th is in c id e n t. S u tto n a ls o n e v e r re tu rn e d to

### 3

w or k atthe H andy M art . A fe w days bef or e tr i al , W el l s i dent i f

i ed Tayl oras the man w ho had th re a te n e d h e r a n d S u tto n , fr o m a p h o to g ra p h s h o w n to h e r b y p o lic e . ¶5. A ccor di ng t o pas s enger s i n the car occupi ed by the r obber s , the f ol l ow i ng event s t ook pl ace. O n D ecem ber29, 2008, M ar cus L ee, T ayl or , N us s i e, and B ubbl ehea d w entt o the H an d y M art i n L ee ’s go ld C h rysler a n d stole g as. T h e y th e n return ed to K im b erly B lack ’s
r es i dence
. T i na D i xon w as s t ayi ng w i th B l ack. T he tw o gi r l s j oi ned the gr oup, and they
re tu rn e d to th e H a n d y M a rt in L e e ’s g o ld C h ry s le r. ¶6. W hen they arr i ved at the H andy M art , T ayl or , N us s i e, and B ubbl ehea d got out of t he
carand sai d t hey w er e goi ng i ns i de t o buy s om ethi ng. D i xon t es t i f i ed thatT ayl orw as
w ear i ng a t ow el on hi s he ad. B ubbl ehea d came outw i th tw o cas es of beer , and N us s i e and T ayl orw er e s ayi ng, “ w e di d i t . ” Lee al s o t es t i f i ed thatN us s i e s ai d, “w e di d i t , ” as s he w as gett i ng i nt o the ca r . D i xon and B l ack as ked t o getoutof the ca r , beca us e they w ant ed nothi ng t o do w i th a r obbery. ¶ 7
. T a y lo r sa id h e w a s u p se t th a t n o o n e “ h a d h is b a c k ” d u ri n g th e ro b b e ry , b u t N u ss ie
as s ur ed T ayl orshe “ha d hi s back. ” F r om t he H andy M art , the pas s enger s w entt o the H i l l t op M o tel in H a z e lh u rst. D ix o n a n d B lac k s tay e d in a ro o m , w h ile T a y lo r, B u b b leh e a d , an d N u ss ie
s har ed a r oom . T ayl or , B ubbl ehea d, and N us s i e s har ed the money f r om the r obbery. A f

t er
s pendi ng the ni ghtatt he H i l l t op M ot el , the pas s enger s w entt o a mal l i n J acks on. T ayl orand N u ss ie b o u g h t clo th in g . A fte r le a v in g th e m a ll i n J a c k s o n , the p a ss e n g e rs r e tu rn e d to B ro o k h a v e n , w h e re th e y le a rn e d th e p o lic e w e re lo o k in g fo r t h e m . ¶8
. T ayl ort es t i f

i e d i n hi s o w n def

ens e, and s t at ed he w as l i vi ng i n N ew H ebr on, M issi ssipp i, at th e ti m e o f th e ro b b ery . H e said h e h ad li v ed in L inco ln C o u n ty fo r o n ly a s h o rt

### 4

per i od of t i m e w hen he be came i nvol ved i n a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p w i th a gi r l named Je s s i ca. H e cl ai m ed thathe had he ar d aboutthe r obbery, butdeni ed havi ng been i nvol ved. T ayl or t es t i f i ed t o havi ng a cl os e, br other l y r el at i ons hi p w i th B ubbl ehea d, and t o havi ng had s exual
r el at i ons hi ps w i th bot h D i xon and B l ack. H e sa i d he w as notw i th t he peopl e w ho had r obbed the H a n d y M art, an d h e h ad n o t trav eled to Ja ck so n w ith an y o f th e p asse n g ers in L ee ’s ca r. H e s ai d he w oul d not“hang outw i th” the l i kes of L ee. ¶9. T ayl orw at ched the vi deo s ur vei l l ance of the H andy M art , a nd r ef err i ng t o the per s on
w i th the t ow el overhi s head, T ayl ors t at ed, “I tai n’tev en m y s tyl e of w al ki ng ors tyl e of dr es s i ng ornone of

that
. ” Tayl ort es t i f

i ed thati n D ece m ber2008, he w as a s caf f ol d bui l der and w as w or ki ng outof t ow n. ¶10. T he part i es s t i pul at ed thatB onni e H ol m es and herhus band ow ned t he H andy M art , and that approxim at el y $ 1, 20 0 had b een st olen fr om the st ore. A ft er the S t at e res t ed, the d efense
m oved f ordi r ect ed ver di ct s of ac qui t t al , w hi ch w er e deni ed. A l l thr ee de f endant s w er e f

ound gui l ty on both char ges . T ayl orw as sent ence d t o fi f t een yea r s , thr ee s us pended, f orr obbery, and f i ve year s , a l l f

i ve s us pended, f

orcons pi r acy. T he s ent ence s w er e s ett o run cons ecut i vel y. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t here was s uf f i ci ent evi den ce t hat T ayl or part i ci pat ed i n a conspi racy. ¶11. T ayl oras s ert s ther e w as nots uf f i ci entevi dence t o pr ove he cons pi r ed t o r ob the H andy M a rt. W e d isa g re e . In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e w a s su ffic ien t to s u p p o rt th e v e rd ict, the r el evantquest i on i s w hether , “af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Jacks on

### 5

v. V ir gini a, 443 U
. S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2 781, 61 L
. E d. 2d. 560 ( 1979) )
. “I f the f act s and in fe re n c e s s o c o n sid e re d p o in t in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t o n a n y e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se w ith
s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e [

j ur or s ] c oul d notha ve f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat th e d e fe n d a n t w a s g u ilty , g ra n tin g th e m o tio n [fo r ju d g m e n t n o t w ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict] is
r equi r ed. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( ci t i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng May v. State, 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )))
. ¶12. T o det erm i ne w hether the evi dence w as s uf f i ci ent t o s uppor t a cons pi r acy c onvi ct i on,
w e turn t o M i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 97
- 1- 1( i ) , w hi c h s t a t e s , “ I f tw o ( 2) ormor e pe r s ons
co n sp ir e e ith er: (a) t o co m m ita c ri m e; or . . . (h) to a cc o m p li sh an y u n law ful p u rpo se, or a law ful p u rpo se b y an u n law ful m e a n s; s u ch p erso n s an d ea ch o f th em , sh all b e g u il ty o f a f el ony . . . . ” M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 1- 1( i ) ( R ev. 2006)
. I ti s undi s put ed thata cr i m e occ ur r ed, ther ef or e, s ubs ect i on ( a) has been met
. I ti s al s o undi s put ed thatm ore than one pe r s on part i ci pated i n the r ob bery of t he H and y M art . T heref ore, this C ou rti s charged w i th the t ask
o f de term ining w h e th e r the ev iden ce w as su ffi cien t t o fi n d T ay lor cons pi r ed w i th another i ndi vi dual ori ndi vi dual s t o comm i tthe r obbery. ¶1 3
. T h is C o u rt h as h eld that p arti es en teri n g into a c o n sp ira c y m u st u n d erstan d “the y are ent er i ng i nt o a com m on pl an and know i ngl y i nt end t o furtheri t s com m on purpos e. ” G riffin
v. S ta te , 480 So. 2d 1124, 1126 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng McD o n a ld v. S ta te , 454 So. 2d 488, 495 ( M i s s . 1984) )
. “The agr eementneed notbe f or m al orexpr es s , butm ay be i nf erred f r om t he
c ir c u m s ta n c e s , p a rt ic u la rl y b y d e c la ra tio n s , a c ts , a n d c o n d u c t o f t h e a lle g e d c o n s p ir a to rs .” G riffin , 4 8 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 6
. See a l so Cla y to n v. S ta te , 5 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).

### 6

¶1 4. T her e i s di r e c t e vi de nc e tha t Tay l or , N us s i e , a nd Bubbl e he a d w a l ke d i nt o the H andy M art ; w hi l e one s erved as l ookout , one t ook beer , and the othert ook m oney. T he thr ee a r gued
overw ho ha d w hos e back w hi l e r obbi ng the H andy M art . L at er , the thr ee di vi ded the money. ¶15. A f

t erthe r obbery, N us s i e s ai d, “w e di d i t . ” A l though T ayl oras s ert s thi s s t at ement w as in c o m p lete , b e c a u se N u ss ie d id n o t sp e c ify w h a t “it” w a s, w e fin d h e r sta tem e n t su ffic ien t to p ro v e c o n s p ir a c y . T h e tr ia l ju d g e s ta te d ,

. . . T h e re h a s b e e n te s tim o n y to th e e ffe c t o f, w e d id it, w h ich w o u ld ten d to pr ove thatt her e w as a conspi r acy betw een one orm or e per s ons t o comm i tthat cr i m e . . . ther e i s t es t i m ony thatcorr obor at es the m anneri n w hi ch the cr i m e w as carr i ed out
. . . . T her e i s t es t i m ony w i th r egar d t o a di s put e among t he al l eged c o n s p ir a to rs a s to th e irle v e ls o f p a rt ic ip a tio n . ¶ 1 6
. In a s im ila r c a s e , E lli s v . S ta te , 778 So. 2d 114, 118 ( M i s s . 2000) , thi s C our ts t at ed: H ere there is t esti m o n y that three ind ividu als w ere riding in the ca r t o g ethe r. T he dr i veras ks one of

the pas s enger s i s he abo ut t o “do t hat , ” t o w hi ch the passeng er r epli es that he i s abou tt o “d o that ” n ow . . . the d ri ver asked the f i rs t p asse n g er if he ha d d on e t hat, t o w hich he repl i ed in the aff i rm at i ve . . . these f act s w oul d al l ow a r at i onal j ury t o fi nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatE l l i s and H ol den had c ons pi r ed t o ki l l J ohns on. T h e lan g u a g e “ d o th a t” w a s s u ff ic ie n t t o e sta b lish a c o n sp ira c y in E lli s , an d “ w e d id it, ” in conj unct i on w i th the otherevi dence i n thi s cas e, i s enough f ora r at i onal j ury to f

i nd t hat T a y lo r, N u s s ie , a n d B u b b le h e a d e n te re d in to a c o n s p ir a c y to ro b th e H a n d y M a rt . ¶17. T ayl or ar gues thi s cas e i s s ynonym ous w i th J o h n so n v. S ta te , 64 2 S o. 2d 92 4 (M i ss. 1994)
. I n thatc as e, J ohns on w as a s ked by a n unde r covera gentt o f i nd a s our ce f

orcoca i ne. J o h n s o n th e n to o k th e a g e n t to th e h o m e o f a m a n n a m e d S p ru ill. Id
. a t926. J ohns on and the
a g e n t a s k e d S p ru ill to se ll th e m c o c a in e , a n d S p ru ill s o ld d ru g s to th e a g e n t. Id
. J ohns on w as convi ct ed of

conspi r acy t o sel l cocai ne. T hi s C our tr ever s ed J ohns on’ s cons pi r acy c onvi ct i on,

### 7

f i ndi ng i ns uf

f i ci entevi dence thatSprui l l and J ohns on had cons pi r ed, beca us e Sprui l l di d not know J ohns on w oul d br i ng an i ndi vi dual t o hi s hous e t o buy coca i ne. Johnson , 642 So. 2d at928. I n thi s cas e, ther e i s evi dence the thr ee pe rpet rat ors w er e know i ngl y i nvol ved i n a
c o m m o n p la n to c o m m it r o b b e ry . ¶18. I n G len n v. S ta te , 996 So. 2d 148, 150 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) , G l enn, the dr i ver of t he
c a r, w a s c o n v icte d o f c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it atte m p ted a rm e d ro b b e ry . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls hel d: T he evi dence w as s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h G l enn’ s gui l tof eac h el em entof c o n sp ira c y . T h e e v id e n c e a lso w a s s u ffic ien t to e n a b le a re a so n a b le ju ro r to f i nd, beyon d a reasonabl e doubt , thatG l enn – know i ng of the pl an t o r ob the bank – dr ove G r een, D ani el s , and S m i t h t o t he bank, w ai t ed f orthem out s i de, an d then serv ed as th e g etaw ay d ri v er. Id
. at157. I n G le nn , se rv in g a s g e taw a y d riv e r w a s e n o u g h to u p h o ld a g u ilty v e rd ict Id
. at 15 7. The r e i s s ub s t a nt i a l l y mor e e vi de nc e t o s up po r tthe j ury’ s v e r di c ti n thi s c as e. T ayl or
w enti nt o the H andy M artw i th tw o otheract i ve part i ci pant s i n the r obbery, hel ped r obbed the
s t or e, and as s um ed the r ol e of ge t aw ay dr i ver . T ayl or , N us s i e, a nd Bubbl ehea d then di s cus s ed “w ho had T aylor ’s back ” du ri ng the robb ery and divi ded the m on ey thr ee w ays. ¶19. I n Ca rr v . S ta te , 20 8 S o. 2 d 88 6, 8 89 (M i ss. 1968), the C our thel d “t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on, t he evi dence m us ts how beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe ac cus ed comm i t t ed the actcharged , and that he di d so u nd er s uch ci rcum st ances t hat every el em ent of the o ff ense exi s t ed. ” Ther e w as evi dence T ayl orknew of the pl an t o r ob the H andy M artand pr ocee ded t o actoutthe pl an and s erve as ge t aw ay dr i ver . T he evi dence s how s thatTayl or , N us s i e, and B ubbl ehea d e nt er ed i nt o an agr eementt o r ob the H andy M art . B eca us e eve ry el ementof t he

### 8

cons pi r acy s t atut e has been met , the evi dence i s s uf f i ci entf ora r eas onabl e j ury t o have f ound T ayl orgui l ty of

cons pi r acy. I I . W het her t he verdi ct s are agai nst t he overwh el m i ng w ei ght of t he evi dence. ¶20. T ayl orar gues the c on s pi r a c y v e r di c ti s agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -1 -1 (i) s tate s, “ [i] f tw o (2 ) o r m o re p e rso n s c o n sp ire e ith e r: (a ) to
comm i ta cr i m e; or. . . ( h) t o acc om pl i s h any unl aw f ul purpos e, ora law f

ul purpos e by any unl aw f ul m eans ; such per s ons , and each of t hem , shal l be gui l ty of a f el ony . . . . ” M i s s C ode A n n . § 9 7 -1 -1 (i) (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). It h a s b e e n e sta b lish e d th a t T a y lo r a n d tw o o th e rs e n ter e d in to a pl an t o comm i ta cr i m e. T he evi dence cl ear l y s uppor t s al l el ement s of the cons pi r acy s t atut e. ¶21. T ayl oral s o as s ert s the r obbery convi ct i on i s uns uppor t ed by the w ei ghtof the evi dence
. “W hen r evi ew i ng a deni al of a m ot i on fora new t r i al bas ed on an obj ect i on t o the w ei ghtof t he evi dence , w e w i l l onl y di s turb a ver di ctw hen i ti s so contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence t hatt o al l ow i tt o st and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). T h e e v id e n c e sh o u ld be vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the ver di ct
. D ilw o rth v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 737 ( M i s s . 2005)
. T he tr i al courtw i l l gr anta new tr i al “onl y i n except i on al cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai ns tthe ver di ct . ” I d . ( ci t i ng A m iker v. D rug s f or L ess, I nc. , 7 9 6 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶22
. A ppl yi ng thi s s t and ard, w e fi nd that the v erdi ctw as not agai nstthe o verw helm i ng w ei ght
o f th e e v id e n c e . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 3 sta tes , “ E v e ry p e rso n w h o sh a ll felo n io u sly tak e the p erso n al pro p erty o f an o ther, i n h is prese n ce o r fr o m h is pe rson an d ag ains t his w ill ,

### 9

b y v io len c e to h is p e rs o n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f so m e im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p erso n , sh all b e g u il ty o f rob b ery . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 2 3
. T h e su m o f $ 1 ,2 0 0 w a s tak e n fr o m th e H a n d y M a rt; this w a s p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f B o n n ie H ol m es and herhus band. B oth s t or e cl erks t es t i f i ed thatTayl orde m anded they gi ve hi m t he
m oney s ever al t i m es , a nd ul t i m at el y i ns i s t ed the m oney be gi ven t o hi m orthe cl erks w oul d not “l i ve t o s ee a notherday. ” B oth cl erks w er e af r ai d f orthei rl i ves due t o T ayl or ’ s thr eat s . T he fr i gh t ening ex peri ence c aused b oth cl erks t o q uittheirj ob s. ¶24. T ayl orar gues ther e w as no show i ng of pos s i bl e i m m edi at e i nj ury t o t he cl erks
. H e ci t es Clayton v. State, 759 So. 2d 1169, 1172 ( M i s s . 1999) , ar gui ng C l ayt on w as notconvi ct ed of
r obbery be caus e he di d nott ake a ct i on “i nt endi ng t o i nt i m i dat e. ” I n Clayton , C l ayt on w al ked behi nd a w om an and sna t ched herpurs e. T he vi ct i m w as neverputi n f ear , beca us e s he di d not
s e e C la y to n c o m in g a n d h e d id n o t s p e a k to h e r. Id
. B ut , i n thi s cas e, T ayl orw al ked behi nd the count eratt he H andy M artt o w her e t he cl erks w er e st andi ng, and he cont i nual l y thr eat ened th e irliv e s u n til th e y g a v e h im m o n e y . ¶25. T ayl ornextas s ert s that , even i f the cl erks w er e i n f

ear , ther e i s no caus al connec t i on betw een be i ng pl ace d i n f eara nd r el i nqui s hi ng the money. B utW el l s t es t i f i ed thatf earw as t he onl y rea so n they g av e m o n ey to T ay lor. CO NC L US I ON ¶2 6. T he evi den c e was s uf f i c i e ntt o s up po r tthe j ury’ s v e r di c t s on bot h char ges , and t he
v e r d i c t s we r e n o ta g a i n s tth e o v e r wh e l mi n g we i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we
a f f i r m.

### 10

¶ 2 7
. C O U N T I : C O N V I C T I O N O F R O B B E R Y A N D SE N T E N C E O F F I F T E E N ( 15) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T ODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH TH E FI RST TW ELVE ( 1 2 ) YEA RS TO S ERVE AND W I TH TH RE E ( 3 ) YEARS S USP ENDED O N POST RELEAS E S UPERVI S I ON , W I TH CONDI TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF CONS P I RACY A ND SENTE NC E O F FI VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T H E C U STO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D EP AR TM EN T O F CO RR EC TI O NS, S USPE N D ED O N PO ST R EL EA SE S UP ER VI S I ON, AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE I N C OU NT I I SHALL RUN C O N S E C U T IV E L Y T O T H E S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T I. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR.