IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2015-KA-01080-COA ANDREW WATSON A/K/A ANDREW D. WATSON APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/26/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W . ASHLEY HINES COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A SHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALICIA MARIE AINSW ORTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY: W I LLIE DEW AYNE RICHARDSON NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCED TO TW ENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED: 12/13/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE IRVING, P.J., FAIR AND WILSON, JJ. FAIR, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Lisa Netters awoke to f ind that Andrew W atson, her best f r iend’s son, had b roken into her apartm ent. W atson attem pted to sexually assault Netters, but he gave u p af t er he was

un a b l e t o overcom e h er resistance. W atson was convicted of burglary , and h e claim s on appeal that his conviction was a gainst the overwhe l mi n g w e ight of the e v idence. W e disagree, and so we af

f irm W atson’s conviction and sentence.FACTS

¶2. Netters testif

ied about the burglary and the assault in great d etail. S he recalled that she had gone out with W a tson’s m other that night, and she adm i tted she h a d consum ed several beers e arlier in the e v e n i n g . A r ound 4:20 a.m ., she was awakened b y what she believed was a knock on her bedroo m w i n d o w , w hich was s o m ething an old room m ate would som etim es d o. But when Netters listened f o r another k n o c k , s h e instead heard the sound of a screwdriver hitting a table, inside her apartm ent. Netters g ot out of bed and saw W a tson standing in the d oorway of her second bedroom

. Netters cursed at W atson as he advanced and grabbed her around the neck with both hands and began chokin g h e r . She f ought as he p ushed her back into her bedroom and f e l l on top of her on the bed, where he b e g an kissing Netters’s n e ck and try ing to o pen her legs. Netters continued to r e s i s t a n d
y elled and threatened W atson u n t i l he relented. W a t son lef t a f ter a brief but colorf

ul conversation w here he claim ed not to have broken into Netters’s h om e. Netters also recalled that she spoke to W atson and his m other som etim e later and that W atson had apologized. ¶3. Netters called the police shortly af ter the attack, and responding of f icers testif

ied to discovering her in a distraught condition. They also observed dam a g e to a window, a m uddy f ootprint on the windowsill, signs of a struggle in Netters’s hom e, and abrasions around her neck. Netters im m e diately identif ied W atson as the perpetrator a n d later picked him out of a lineup. ¶4. W a tson testif

i ed in his own def

ense and d enied the allegations. W a tson’s m other also

2testif

i ed f or the def ense, c laim ing that s he had seen him at hom e, asleep, a f ew hours bef

ore and af ter the attack. DISCUSSION ¶5. On appeal, W ats o n c l a i ms t h e verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. A new trial based o n t h e w e i g ht of the evidence should be granted “only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” Bush v. State , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (¶18) (Miss. 2005) (citation om itted). “[ T]he evidence m ust be viewed in the light m ost f avorable to the verdict[ .]” Je n k i n s v
. S t ate , 131 So. 3d 544, 551 (¶23) (Miss. 2013). ¶6. As the m otion f

o r a new trial is entrusted to the circuit j udge, w ho had a f i r s t h and view of the trial, “reversal i s warranted only i f the trial court abused i ts discretion in deny ing [ the] m otion f

o r a new trial.” W

aits v. State , 119 So. 3d 1024, 1028 (¶13) (Miss. 2013). ¶7. W a tson’s challenge here f ocuses on Netters’s testim ony . H e points out that Netters adm itted she had b e e n d r i n k i n g the night bef ore, b ut we note t hat there was no evidence Netters had consum ed a ny alcohol af ter approxim ately 7 :30 – m ore than eight hours bef ore the attack. W atson also points to the lack of phy sical evidence ty ing him to the crim e, and he notes that he did not bear any injuries f rom a struggle. ¶8. A review of Netters’s testim ony m akes it clear that she was certain and unequivocal in her identif

i cation of W atson as her attacker, and it is undisputed she had known him f or y ears. She described a n e n c ounter lasting approxim ately f ive m inutes and involving

3signif

icant f ace-to-f ace contact and dialogue, f ollowed l ater by an apo l o g y and apparent adm ission of guilt by W atson. Netters’ s t e s t i mo n y was not unreasonable or self

contradictory , and W atson’s denials and his m other’s corroboration of his account c onstitute only conf licting evidence. “Conf

licting testim ony does not evince overwhelm ing evidence; where the verdict turns on the credibility of conf l icting testim o ny

and the credibility

of the witnesses, it is the jury ’s duty to resolve the conf lict.” Brown v. State , 995 So. 2 d 698, 702 (¶13) (Miss. 2008) (citation and quotation om itted). ¶9. W a tson’s conviction is not against the o verwhelm ing weight of the evidence, and so

we m ust af f irm

. ¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF T HE CIRCUIT COURT O F WASHINGTON COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF BURGLARY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT O F CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS O F THIS APPEAL A RE ASSESSED TO WASHINGTON COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING AN D G R I F FIS, P.JJ., BARNES, I SHEE, CARLTON, JAMES, WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

4