I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - KA- 0 1 3 2 7 - S CT B O B B Y D EM E T R IU SH A R R IS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 21/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W ALTER B AI LEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : M AR CU S DOUGL AS E VANS 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : BI LBO M I TCH ELL 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 - 12/ 13/ 2007 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 D I A Z, P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. B obby D emet r i us H arr i s w as i ndi ct ed f oraggr avat ed as s a ul t( M i s s . Code A nn . § 9 7- 3- 7( 2) ( R ev. 2006) ) agai ns tK ei th G r antand aggr avat ed dom es t i c vi ol ence ( M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 7( 4) ( R ev. 2006) ) agai ns thi s s t eps on, J erm ai ne D avi s . A jur y convi ct ed H arr i s of aggr avat ed as s aul t , a nd f ound hi m gui l ty of

the l es s eri ncl uded of

f ens e of s i m pl e as s aul ton the dom es t i c vi ol ence c har ge. Forthe aggr avat ed as s aul tc onvi ct i on, H arr i s w as s ent ence d t o t en yea r s i n cus t ody w i th s i x year s s us pended a nd f i ve yea r s of

pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. H e w as s ent ence d t o s i x m onths i n cus t ody f orthe s i m pl e as s aul tconvi ct i on, t o be s erved

### 2

concurr ent l y w i th t he t en- years ent ence . A ggr i eved, H arr i s appea l s t o thi s C our t . Fi ndi ng thathi s cl ai m s on appea l ar e w i thoutm er i t , w e af f i r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . FACTS ¶ 2 . S h o rtly a fte r H u rric a n e K a trin a , o n S e p te m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 5 , B o b b y H a rris in fo rm e d h is
es tr anged w i f

e C as s andr a thathe pl anned t o tr avel f r om A l abama t o he rhome i n M er i di an, M i s s i s s i ppi
. C as s andr a t es t i f i ed t hathe w arned heragai ns thavi ng anyone a tthe hous e w hen he arr i ved and thr eat ened ha r m t o anyone ther e. She s ai d thats he i nterpre t ed thi s t o m ean that she w as not t o h ave an y o ther m en in her hom e w hen he g ot there. C assandra al so t es t i f i ed thatH arr i s cal l ed hercel l phone abouttw enty t i m es thr oughou tthe da y. W or r i ed f orhers af

ety, s he w entt o t he pol i ce s t at i on t o geta re s tr ai ni ng orde r . She w as t ol d t hats he
w o u ld n o t b e a b le to o b ta in o n e u n til th e fo llo w in g d a y . ¶3. W hen H arr i s arr i ved ar ound 11: 00 p. m . , he ca l l ed C as s andr a f r om herf r ontyar d and
as ked i f he re l e c tr i c i ty, w hi c h h a d b e e n k no c ke d o utby the hu rr i c a ne , ha d b e e n r e s t or ed. A l though C as s andr a di d have pow er , she t ol d H arr i s thati tw as s t i l l of f
. Si nce H arr i s w as i n the f r ontyar d, he coul d s ee he rl i ght s w er e on, and he beca m e angry w i th Cass andr a f or lying t o him
. T h ere w ere sev era l peo p le i n the h o m e, i n clud ing Jerm aine D av is, C assa n d ra’s ei ght e e n- ye a r - ol d s on ; K a tr i na M orr i s , Cas s a nd r a ’ s r oo mm a t e ; K a tr i na ’ s tw o y ou ng daught er s ; and K ei th G r ant , a f r i end. ¶4. H arr i s as ked C as s andr a t o come out s i de s o they coul d t al k. W hen C as s andr a r ef us ed, expl ai ni ng thatther e w er e chi l dr en i n the hous e and i tw as nota good t i m e, H arr i s thr eat ened t o come i n. H e then br oke a w i ndow pane i n the f r ontdoorw i th hi s han d, re ache d i n, unl ocked the d oo r, and ent er ed the hous e. K atr i na M orr i s cal l ed 9- 1- 1. H arr i s gr abbed

### 3

C assandr a and puthi s a r m a r ound he rne ck, a tw hi ch poi ntthe otherpe opl e i n the h ou se b e g a n to s c re a m . ¶5. G r antt es t i f

i ed t hatw hen H arr i s gra bbed C as s andr a, hi s s hi r tr os e up, r evea l i ng a gun tucked i nt o the w ai s tband of hi s pant s . G r antpunched H arr i s i n the f ace a nd then qui ckl y r an outof the hous e. J erm ai ne D avi s r an outas w el l , and t es t i f i ed thathe hea r d H arr i s s ay,

“ Y ’a ll are fix in g to d ie n o w .” O n c e o u tsid e , the tw o m e n se p a ra ted , w ith G ra n t b o ltin g to th e rig h t an d Je rm a in e to th e lef t. ¶6. H arr i s then r ecov ered f rom the pu nch an d b eg an fi ri n g h is w ea p o n . C assa n d ra t es t i f i ed thatH arr i s w as s t andi ng i n the yar d w hen he w as s hoot i ng, butK atr i na M orr i s s t at ed thats he w i t ness ed hi m s hoot i ng f r om i ns i de the hous e. Speci f i cal l y, M orr i s t es t i f

i ed that H arr i s “s t ood on the i ns i de of the hous e and a i m ed thatgun at[ G r antand J erm ai ne] and unl oaded .
. . atl eas tf

i ve r ounds
. ” ¶7. A s hor tt i m e l at er , O f f i cer K evi n B oyd arr i ved on the s cene . H e f ound H arr i s i n t he y a rd talk in g o n h is c e ll p h o n e a n d q u e stio n e d h im a s to th e w h e re a b o u ts o f th e g u n . H a rris to ld h im th e g u n w a s in h is v e h icle . T h e w e a p o n h e ld o n e liv e ro u n d a n d fo u r sp e n t sh e ll
c a s in g s . ¶8. A t the t i m e of

hi s a r r es t , H arr i s w as a pol i ce of f i cerw i th the Y or k, A l abama, Pol i ce D epart m ent ; the w eapon he di s char ged w as hi s depart m ent - i s s ued s i dearm . H e had s erved
w i t h t he A r my N a t i on a l Guar d f orthr e e y e a r s a nd the Ar my Res e r ve f ors i x, a nd had no pr evi ous cr i m i nal r ecor d. DI S CU S S I ON

### Har ri s argue s that

thetria l c ourt

er re d in failin g to grant

his motion f

or a new tri al 1 

### and/ or a judgm ent

notwithst anding the verdic t on hi s convi ctions of a ggravat ed a ss ault and agg ravateddo mestic vio lence. H ow ever, as no ted abo ve, the juryd id no t findHarris g uilty of a ggravat ed dom es ti c vi ole nce . 4 ¶9. T he def

endant r ai s es f

our i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) the tr i al court al l ow ed the admi s s i on of i m perm i s s i bl e hea r s ay; ( 2) ther e w as i ns uf f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta convi ct i on; ( 3) t he 1
v erd ictw as a g ains t th e w eigh t of th e e v iden ce ; a n d (4 ) th e p rese n ce o f cu m u lat ive e rrors
w a rr a n ts re v e rs a l. I . H ears ay T es t i m ony. ¶ 1 0 . H a rris a rg u e s th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in a d m itt in g h e a rsa y tes tim o n y fro m b o th C as s andr a and J erm ai ne D avi s . T he s t andar d of r evi ew gover ning the admi s s i bi l i ty of
e v id e n c e is w h e th e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . P e terso n v. S ta te , 671 So. 2d 647, 655 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng B a in e v. S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); W a de v. S ta te , 583 So. 2d 965, 967 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. T hi s C our tm us tf i r s tdet erm i ne i f

the pr operl egal
s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d
. P eters on , 671 So. 2d at655- 56 ( ci t i ng Baine , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d at 10 7 8 ). I f the tr i al courti ncorr ect l y appl i ed the rul es of evi dence , r es ul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce t o t he
a c c u s e d , th e n a re v e rs a l is w a rr a n te d
. P eters on , 671 So. 2d at656 ( ci t i ng P a rk er v . S tate , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 7 -1 1 3 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ))
. A . C as s andra’ s T es t i m ony. ¶11. U pon di r ectexami nat i on, C as s andr a s t at ed thatw hen s he w entt o the M er i di an Pol i ce D epart m ent t o o btai n a restrai ning order, she w as t old t o w ai tun t i l the nex td ay. T he d efense
o b je c te d to th e te s tim o n y o n th e b a s is o f h e a rs a y . T h e c o u rt o v e rr u le d th e o b je c tio n .

### 5

¶12. T he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence def

i ne hear say as “a st at em ent, otherthan one
m ade by the decl ar antw hi l e t es t i f yi ng a tthe tr i al orhear i ng, of f er ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the truth of the m att erass ert ed. ” M . R . E . 801( c)
. H ow ever , “[ i ] f the s i gni f

i canc e of a s t at ement i s s i m pl y thati tw as m ade and t her e i s no i s s ue aboutthe truth of the mat t eras s ert ed, t hen the s t at ementi s nothe ar s ay. ” T a n n e r v . S ta te , 764 So. 2d 385, 406 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng M icke l v. Sta te , 6 0 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 0 , 1 1 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ))
. ¶13. I n thi s cas e, the St at e w as not of f er i ng thi s s t at ement t o pr ove the truth of the mat t er as s ert ed, butt o demonst rat e w hy M r s . H arr i s di d notgeta r es tr ai ni ng or derthatday. C as s andr a’ s s t at ementw as s i m pl y a r eci t at i on of w hatthe of

f i cer s t ol d herw hen s he s ought
a r es tr ai ni ng or deragai ns tH arr i s . T her ef or e, t he s t at ementw as nothear s ay, and i tw as not
e rr o r f o r t h e tr ia l c o u rt to o v e rr u le th e o b je c tio n . B . Jerm ai ne’ s T es t i m ony. ¶14. H arr i s ’ s s t eps on J erm ai ne of f er ed t es t i m ony about the event s l eadi ng up t o the ni ght i n ques t i on. Q : D u rin g tha t da y , w e re y o u aw a re o f an y p h o n e ca lls th a t w e re c o m in g in to y o u r ho u se o r i n to y o u r m o ther? A : W el l , I di dn’ t

— w e di dn’ tsee , b utw hen t hey— they gotback, that ’ s w hat the— t he s ubj e c t t he y was t al ki ng a bout . ( emphasi s added)
. The def ens e couns el obj ect ed t o the t es t i m ony, ar gui ng hear s ay, and the tr i al courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on. ¶1 5 . O n a p p e a l, H a rris a rg u e s th a t th is t esti m o n y w en t t o p rov e “ w h at w as sta ted to [ C as s andr a] by the def

endant
. ” H ow ever , J erm ai ne nevert es t i f i ed as t o w hatH arr i s m i ght have s ai d t o C as s andr a. I f anythi ng, the t es t i m ony w as e vi dence thatphone ca l l s had bee n

### 6

m ade t o the house t hatday, and C as s andr a had a l r eady t es t i f i ed thatH arr i s had ca l l ed s ever al t i m es . B eca us e thi s i nf

or m at i on w as al r eady i n evi dence , any err orc oul d nothave pr ej udi ced th e d e fe n d a n t. See T

anner , 764 So. 2d at407 ( M i s s . 2000) ( hol di ng thathear s ay t es t i m ony
r egar di ng i nf

or m at i on al r eady i n evi dence w as notpr ej udi ci al t o t he ac cus ed)
. T her ef or e, th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. ¶16. A m ot i on f

ora d i rect ed verdi ctan d a m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the
v e rd ic t c h a lle n g e th e su ff ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e . B u sh v. S ta te , 8 95 S o. 2 d 83 6, 84 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n re v iew in g a c a se fo r su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , “th e re lev a n t q u e stio n is
w het he r , a f

t e rvi e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n the l i gh tmos tf a vo r a bl e t o the pr os e c ut i on , a ny ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt
. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2781, 61 L . Ed. 2d 560 ( 1979) )
. T he evi dence m us ts how “beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat
ac cu sed co m m itted th e ac t ch arg ed , an d th at he did so un d er su ch circu m stan ce s tha t eve ry el ementof

the of f ens e exi s t ed; and w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o m eett hi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci ent t o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 )). If, k ee p ing in m ind the re aso n ab le-do u b t st an d ard , “re aso n ab le an d fairm ind ed m en in the ex erc ise o f i m p arti al j u d g m en t m igh t r ea ch d if feren t con clus ion s o n ev ery e le m e n t o f t h e o ff

e n s e ,” th e e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n s u ff ic ie n t. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 6 8 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )).

### 7

¶ 1 7 . H a rris a rg u e s th a t t h e S ta te f a ile d to p re s e n t s u ff

icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is convi ct i on of

aggr avat ed as s aul t . H e ar gues t hatt he al l eged vi ct i m neverappr ehende d any d a n g e r, a s G ra n t n e v e r s a w h im p o in t o r f ir e a w e a p o n a t h im
. ¶18. H arr i s has conf

us ed the comm on l aw def i ni t i on of as s aul t i n t or t , w hi ch r equi r es t he el ementof

appr ehens i on, w i th the s t atut ory de f i ni t i on s etf

or th i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 9 7 -3 -7 (2 )(a ) (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). U n d e r th e c o m m o n law , as sa u lt o c c u rs w h e re “ a p e rso n . . . ac ts i nt endi ng t o caus e a ha r m f ul orof fensi ve con t actw i th the per s on of the other
. . . oran i m m i nentappr ehens i on of s uch a c ont act . ” W

ebb v. Jacks on 583 So . 2d 94 6 , 9 5 1 (M iss
. 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o tin g R e sta tem e n t (S e c o n d ) o f T o rts § 2 1 (1 9 6 5 )); s ee al s o R obertA . W eems a nd R o b e rt M . W e e m s , Miss iss ip p i L a w o f T o rts , § 2 :1 (2 0 0 2 ) (“the c au se o f ac ti o n for the tort
o f assa u ltp rotec ts a p erso n ’s i n terest i n b eing free fro m a n im m inen t app reh en sion o f a harm f ul orof f ens i ve bodi l y cont act ”)
. T he cr i m i nal s t atut e, on the otherhand, does not
re q u ire a n a p p re h e n sio n o f d a n g e r; a p e rso n ca n b e c o n v icte d o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i f h e is fou n d to h av e a tt em p ted “ to ca u se se ri o u s b o d il y injury to a n o th er, or ca u ses s u ch injury purpos el y, know i ngl y, or r eckl es s l y underci r cumst ance s m ani f es t i ng extr eme i ndi f

f er ence to th e v a lu e o f h u m a n lif e .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 (2 )( a ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶19. T he def

endant admi t t ed t o di s char gi ng hi s w eapon w i th the i nt ent t o s car e G r ant , and ag g rav ated the c o n d it io n s o f th e c ri m e b y em p loy ing a d ea d ly w ea p o n . T h ere w ere di s cr epanc i es i n the t es t i m ony as t o w hetherH arr i s i nt ended t o harm G r ant . H arr i s t es t i f i ed thathe s hoti nt o the ai rata n angl e, i nt endi ng onl y t o s car e G r ant . H ow ever , C as s andr a and K at r i na b oth t e s t i f

i e d tha tf r om the i rv a nt a ge p oi ntwi thi n the h ome, Harr i s a pp e a r e d t o be
s h o o tin g d ir e c tly to w a rd G ra n t, n o t a w a y fr o m h im
.

### 8

¶20. “[ W ] her e the phys i cal f act s and ci r cumst ance s i n evi dence m at er i al l y contr adi ctt he d e fe n d a n t’ s v e rs io n o f w h a t h a p p e n e d , th e c ir c u it c o u rt is n o t r e q u ir e d to d ir e c t a v e rd ic t . .

. . R ather , t he m att ert hen becomes a que s t i on f orthe j ury. ” W

a tts v. S ta te , 717 So. 2d 314, 321 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng W e tz v . S ta te , 5 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 0 3 , 8 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 )). It is w e ll
e s ta b lis h e d th a t th e ju ry is th e s o le ju d g e o f t h e c re d ib ility o f th e w itn e s s . G a th rig h t v. S ta te , 38 0 So. 2 d 12 76 , 1 27 8 ( M i s s . 1 98 0)
. “ [ W ] he n the e vi de nc e i s c on f l i c t i ng , the j ury w i l l be the s ol e j udge of

the cr edi bi l i ty of

w i tnes s es a nd the w ei ghta nd w or th of theirt est i m ony. T his w i se rule appl i es w i th eq ual f orce t o the st at e' s w i tnesses and the ap pell ant' s w i tnesses, i ncl udi ng the appe l l anthi m s el f
. ” I d. ¶ 2 1 . B e c a u se th e re w a s e v id e n c e th a t H a rris a ttem p ted “ to c a u se se rio u s b o d ily in ju ry ” to G ra n t, th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. W e a lso fin d th a t th e re w a s s u ffic ien t e v id e n c e to
su p p o rta c o n v ict ion o f si m p le assa u lta g ains t D av is. A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rtd id n o t err in d e n y in g th e m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t. I I I . W ei ght of

t he E vi dence. ¶ 2 2 . H a rris a lso a rg u e s th a t th e v e rd ic t w a s a g a in st th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . W e w ill onl y di s turb a j ury ver di ctw hen “i ti s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w ou l d sanct 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 is C o u rt a c ts
a s a “ th irtee n th ju ro r” a n d v iew s th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( ci t i ng He r r ing , 691 So. 2d a t957)
. A de ci s i on t o r ever s e and or der
a new tr i al , “unl i ke a r ever s al bas ed on i ns uf f i ci entevi dence , does not m ean thatacqui t t al

### 9

w as the onl y pr operver di ct . ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( quot i ng Mc Q u e e n v. S ta te , 423 So. 2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 )). ¶23. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , the def endanti s not ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al
. W hi l e ther e w as conf l i ct i ng evi dence r egar di ng H arr i s ’ s i nt ent , t he
we i g h to f

th e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s th e S t a t e ’ s c l a i m th a tHa rr i s wa s f i r i n g h i s g u n a tGr a n t . As
n o te d a b o v e , th e ju ry is th e s o le ju d g e o f t h e c re d ib ility o f t h e w itn e s s . G at hr i ght , 380 So. 2 d at 12 7 8 . A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rtd id n o t err i n d en y ing th e d efe n d an t’ s m o ti o n for a
n e w tr ia l. IV . C u m u l ati ve E rrors. ¶24. T he def

endantar gues thatthe cumul at i ve ef f ectof the var i ous e rr or s i n the tr i al , even i f har m l es s al one, re qui r es r ever s al and r emand. “The cum ul at i ve err ordoctr i ne s t ems f r om the doctr i ne of

harm l es s err or. . . [ w hi ch] hol ds thati ndi vi dual err or s , w hi ch ar e not
rev ersible in the m selv es, m ay co m b ine w ith o ther erro rs t o m ak e u p rev ersible e rror, w h ere the cumul at i ve ef

f ectof a l l err or s depr i ves the def endantof a f undament al l y f

ai rtr i al
. ” R oss
v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1018 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng B y ro m v . S tate , 863 So. 2d 836, 847 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 )). H o w e v e r, w h e re th e re is n o e rro r in p a rt, th e re c a n b e n o re v e rsib le e rro r to th e w h o le
. G ib so n v. S ta te , 731 So. 2d 1087, 1098 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Mc Fe e v. S ta te , 511 So. 2d 130, 136) ( M i s s . 1987) )
. B eca us e ther e w er e no err or s r egar di ng the convi ct i on w hi ch
w o u ld w a rra n t re v e rsa l, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 5 . T h e S tate p re se n ted su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt
a g a in st K e ith G ra n t an d sim p le a ss a u lt ag a in st J e rm a in e D a v is, a n d v iew in g the ev id e n c e in

### 10

th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t, th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t en tit led to a n e w trial. A ddi t i onal l y, beca us e ther e w er e no err or s thatw oul d w arr antr ever s al , the j udgm entof t he tr ia l c o u rt is a ff

ir m e d
. ¶ 2 6 . COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF AGGRAVAT ED AS S AUL T AND S ENTEN CE OF T E N ( 1 0 ) Y E AR S I N T HE C US T OD Y OF T HE MI S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS, AFFI RM ED . THE EX EC UT I ON OF THE LA S T S I X ( 6 ) YE ARS OF T HE S E NT EN CE I M P OS ED I N COUNT I I S S TA YE D AND T HAT P ORTI ON OF T H E S E N T E N C E I S SU SP ENDE D AND TH E AP PE LL AN T SHAL L BE RE LE AS ED ON S U P E R VI S E D P RO B A T I O NFO R A TER M O F FI VE ( 5 ) YE AR S , W I TH C O N D I TIO N S, U N D E R T HE S U P E R V I S I ON O F T HE MI S S I S S I P P I D E P A R T ME NT OF CORRE CT I ONS . COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF S I M P LE ASS AUL T A ND SENT EN C E O F SI X ( 6 ) M O NT H S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DEPA RT M EN T O F CO RRECTI ON , AFF I RM ED. S ENTENCE I N CO UNT I I S HA LL R U N C O N C U R R E N T L Y T O T H E S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T I. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. G RA VES AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NCU R I N RESULT ONLY .