IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI N O. 2015-KA-00218-COA JOE M. GILLESPIE A/K/A JOE MITCHELL GILLESPIE A/K/A JOE GILLESPIE APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LEE J. HOW ARD COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: BENJAMIN ALLEN SUBER ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND DISTRICT ATTORNEY: FORREST ALLGOOD NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF ROBBERY AND SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER TO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS W ITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR PROBATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/21/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE LEE, C.J., BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. BARNES, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. An Oktibbeha County j u r y c o n v i c t e d J o e G i l l e s p i e of robbery

. The trial court

s e n t e n c e d him as a habitual of f ender to f

if teen y ears in t he custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections (MDOC), without eligibility f or parole or probation. Finding no error, we af

f irm

.STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. I n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3, at approxim ately 11 p .m ., two Mississipp i S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y f reshm en, Kristopher P ritchard and Nicholas Zande r , went to eat at a Sonic f ast-f ood establishm ent in Starkville, Mississippi. Af t er going to S onic, Zander asked Pritchard to stop
at a n earby convenience store to purchase som e cigarettes. They pulled up to a Chevron gas station with an adjacent liquor store. As they parked, both m en noticed a very t all Af rican Am erican m ale w ith tattoos on his neck standing a gainst t he building. He w as later identif ied

as Gillespie. W hile Zander went inside the gas station, Gillespie a p p r o a c hed Pritchard’s vehicle. Pritchard rolled down his window, and Gillespie asked h im f or a couple of dollars. Pritchard agreed. As Pritchard took out his wallet, Gillespie r eached in through the window and grabbed it. T he two m e n b rief ly struggled f

or the w allet, b ut Gillespie snatched it away and ran of

f

. Pritchard jum

ped out of his vehicle to chase Gillespie a nd retrieve h is wallet. As Zander c am e out of t he store, Pritchard asked him to h elp. Both m en chased Gillespie around the side of

the store into a wooded area, where they lost Gillespie. ¶3. Pritchard called 911. W hen law enf orcem ent arrived, Pritchard described the robbery and perpetrator. The next day , Pritchard gave a f orm al statem ent at the police station, and positively identif

ied G illespie f

rom a photo lineup. Gillespie was arrested several d ay s later. ¶4. At trial, P r i t c h a r d a n d Z a n der testif ied f or the State, a s well as the interviewing detective. Pritchard identif ied Gillespie in open court as the robber. Z ander also identif ied Gillespie as the m an standing against t he liquor s t ore, wearing a st r i p e d p o l o -sty le shirt, whom they chased. O n c r o s s - e x am ination, Zander adm itted he only saw t he back of

2Gillespie.

¶5. W h ile Gillespie did not testif y , the def ense’s theory of the case, suggested throughout trial, was that Pritchard called Gillespie over to his vehicle when they pulled up to the convenience store and a sked Gillespie to get h im som e drugs. Further, the def ense suggested that Pritchard f

abricated the robbery incident w hen G illespie took Pritchard’s m o ney and did not return with drugs. ¶6. The j ury f

ound Gillespie guilty of robbery

. He was s entenced, as a habitual of f ender under M ississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2015), to serve f if teen y ears in the custody of the MDOC. Gillespie tim ely appealed his conviction and sentence. ANALYSIS ¶7. Gillespie raises one issue: whether t he evidence was suf f icient to support the verdict of guilty

. In reviewi n g t he s uf f iciency of the e vidence, the c o urt m ust determ ine whether, when “ viewing t he evidence in the light m ost f a vorable t o the prosecution,” any r ational juror could have f

o u n d t h a t the S tate proved each elem ent of the crim e charged b ey ond a reasonable doubt. Bush v. State , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2 005) (quoting Jackson

v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 315 (1979)). All credible evidence consistent with the def endant’s
g u ilt will be accepted as true, as well as all f avorable inf

erences that m ay be reasona b l y drawn f ro m t h e evidence. Robinson v. S tate , 940 So. 2 d 2 35, 240 (¶13) (Miss. 2006) (citation om itted). ¶8. Gillespie was charged with robbery under M ississippi Code A nnotated section 97-3- 73 (Rev. 2014). The essential elem ents of robbery are: “(1) f e lonious i n t e n t , ( 2 ) f

o rce or

3putting i n f ear a s a m eans of ef

f ectuating the i ntent, and (3) by t hat me a n s , t a k i n g and
carry ing away the personal property of another f rom his person or i n h is presence.” Smith

v. State , 913 So. 2d 365, 3 6 7 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. A pp. 2005) (quoting Crocker v . State , 272 So. 2 d 6 6 4 , 6 6 5 (Miss. 1973)). Gillespie claim s the State f ailed to prove bey ond a r easonable doubt that Gillespie stole P ritchard’s wallet, b ecause Zander did not “ thoroughly corroborate” Pritchard’s testim o ny about the robbery

. Z ander adm itted that he o nly saw the individual Pritchard w as chasing f rom behind, and a p erson o ther than Gillespie could have been wearing the striped shirt. ¶9. W e are not p ersuaded by this argu me n t

. T h e Mississippi Suprem e Court has held: “[ T]he testim ony of a single uncorroborated witness is suf f i cient to sustain a conviction.” W hitlock v. State , 47 S o. 3d 668, 676 (¶22) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Derouen v. State , 994 So. 2d 748, 7 52 (¶9) (Miss. 2008)). Pritchard’s testim ony supplies evidence s uf f icient f or a jury
to f ind t he elem ents o f robbery bey ond a r easonable doubt. Pritchard identif ied Gillespie as the individual who took his w allet f rom a photo lineup due to Gillespie’s f acial f eatures and the distinctive tattoo on his n eck. Pritchard also identif ied Gillespie in open court. Pritchard’s testim ony was n ot c ontradicted or im peached by Zander’s account o f the robbery

– i n f act, Zander’s testim ony corroborates Gillespie’s testim ony . Zander had a dif f erent, less clear vantage point f

or i dentif y ing Gillespie, but he too positively i dentif ied Gillespie as the
person he chased to get Pritchard’s wallet back. Zander testif ied the perpetrator was wearing

a s t riped shirt and had neck t attoos. The individual was the sam e h eight and build, and was wearing the sam e striped polo-sty le shirt, as the individual standing in f r o n t o f the liquor

4store when t hey arrived. Zander m ade an in

- c o u r t i d e n t if ication of Gillespie as w ell. W e conclude there was suf

f icient evidence to support Gillepsie’s conviction of robbery

. ¶10. THE JUDGMENT OF T HE CIRCUIT COURT OF OKTIBBEHA COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF ROBBERY AND SENTENCE A S A HABITUAL O FFENDER OF FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CO R R E C T I O NS W ITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE OR P ROBATION IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS A PPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO OKTIBBEHA COUNTY. LEE, C.J., IRVING AND GRIFFIS, P.JJ., I S HEE, C ARLTON, FAIR, JAMES, WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

5