IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
N O. 2015-KA-00200-COA JAMES MICHAEL JENKINS A/K/A JAMES M. JENKINS A/K/A MICHAEL JENKINS A/K/A JAMES MICHAEL A/K/A JAMES MICHAEL LEE JENKINS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/22/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ANDREW K. HOW ORTH COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS DISTRICT ATTORNEY: BENJAMIN F. CREEKMORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF BURGLARY OF A DW ELLING AND SENTENCED TO TW ENTY-FIVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, W ITH TW ENTY YEARS TO SERVE, FOLLOW ED BY FIVE YEARS OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/09/2016 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE ISHEE, CARLTON AND JAMES, JJ. JAMES, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. A Calhoun County jury f o und Jam es Michael Jenkins g uilty of burglary o f a dwelling
in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated s ection 97-17-23 (Rev. 2014). J enkins appealsf

r o m h i s conviction arguing that the verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of t h e evidence. Finding no error, we af f irm

. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. O n F e b r u a r y 3, 2014, Brian and Stephani e M u r p h r e e ’ s h o u s e i n V a r d a m a n , Mississippi, was burglarized. Several item s were t aken f rom t he house, including a 12-gauge shotgun, a .22-caliber rif

le, jewelry , a laptop, an electronic gam ing sy stem , and two c om puter tablets. O n April 2, 2014, Jenkins, Jam es Bennet t N o r w ood, a nd David Starkey were indicted f o r burglary of the Murphrees’ house in violation of section 97-17-23. Norwood and Starkey b oth testif

ied at trial i m

plicating Jenkins in the burglary

. Prior to trial, N orwood pled guilty to b urglary o f a dwelling, and Starkey r eached an agreem ent with the district attorney to plead guilty

to a reduced charge. ¶3. Norwood t estif

ied t hat on February 3 , 2014, he was with J enki n s a t D a v i d Allen Morgan’s house discussing way s that he and J e nkins could get m oney f or purchasing drugs. Jenkins and Norwood decided to break into the Murphrees’ house because Jenkins knew Brian Murphree. Norwood’s cousin brought Jenkins and Norwood to a trailer l ocated near the Murphrees’ house. Jenkins a nd Norwood w alked through the woods f rom the trailer to the house. Norwood testif i ed that he and J e n k i n s b r oke into t he house a nd took guns, jewelry , and com

puter t a b l e t s f

rom the h ouse. Af

ter burglarizing the house, Jenkins and Norwood walked back through the woods. Jenkins called S tarkey a nd told him t o com e get them . Starkey

picked them

up f ive to ten m i nutes later. ¶4. Starkey t estif

ied that Je n k i n s c a l led him and asked f or a ride. Starkey picked up

2Jenkins and Norwood as they were com i ng out of the woods. Starkey noticed that Jenkins and Norwood were carry i ng two guns and bags containing various i tem s. Af ter driving about

a h alf of a m ile, Starkey discovered that the i tem s Jenkins and Norwood had were stolen. Starkey stopped and told them to get out of his c a r. Jenkins a nd Norwood got out of the car, and Norwood’s cousin picked them up. ¶5. Phillip W atts testif ied that he was a longtim e f riend o f Jenkins. W atts testif ied that he works o n com

puters. W atts testif

ied that in February 2 014, Jenkins d ropped of f a laptop with W atts f

or him to work on so that it would r un f a ster. Because t he com

puter did not have

a charger, W atts was u n able to work o n i t

. Watts was later arrested and charged with receiving stolen property , the laptop, in connection with the burglary

. W atts pled guilty to a reduced charge of

obstruction of

justice. ¶6. Eric A rm strong testif i ed that in February 2014, Jenkins approached him and a group of f riends. Jenkins aske d i f a n y o n e wanted t o buy a com puter tablet or gun. Arm strong purchased the com

p uter tablet f

or $35. Arm strong saw the gun Jenkins wanted to sell, but did not p urchase i t. Arm strong later learned that law enf orcem e nt were s earching f o r h i m due to his p o s s ession of the t ablet. Af ter speaking with an of

f icer f rom the sherif

f ’s departm ent, Arm strong r e t u r n e d t he tablet to the sherif f ’s departm ent and provided a
statem ent about how he obtained it. Arm strong was not charged with a crim e. ¶7. Deputy Juston R obertson o f the Calhoun County Sherif f ’s D epartm ent also testif

ied

at tria l

. A s p a rt of Deputy Robertson’s investigation of the burglary , he contacted Lee
“Buster” McGregor and asked h im if he could assist in locating the s t ole n g u n s f r o m the

3Murphrees’ house. McGregor told Robertson that Jenkins had previously approached him about s elling guns. Af

ter speaking with Of

f icer Robertson, McGregor called Jenk i n s and told him t hat he wanted to purchase a gun that he w a s s e l l i n g. Jenkins a nd McGregor
arrange d t o meet f

or the sale. Bef

ore Jenkins a nd McGregor m et, Deputy Robertson gave McGregor $150 cash to use f or buy ing the gun. Deputy Robertson took a photo of the cash that he gave to McGregor. ¶8. McGregor m et with Jenkins and purchased a shotgun f r om Jenkins using the cash that Deputy Robertson had g iven him

. McGregor brought t he s hotgun to Deputy Robertson. The serial num

ber on the shotgun m atched the shotgun t hat was stolen f r om the M urphrees’ house. McGregor inf

orm ed Of f icer Robertson w hich direction Jenkins was headed af ter the

e x c hange. Of

f icers stopped a vehicle occupied by Jenkins and being driven b y S h a r k e y . Of f icers searched Jenkins and f ound the cash t hat Mc G r e g o r h a d used to p urchase the shotgun. ¶9. Of f icers went t o Morgan’s hou s e , b e c a u s e J e n k i n s was living there at the tim e. Morgan agreed to allow the of f icers to search the house. Of f icers f ound a cigarette lighter that belonged to the Murphrees in the room where Jenkins slept. Morgan contacted of f icers the next day and reported t hat he f ound a gun a t his house. This gun was later identif ied as the .22-caliber rif

le stolen f rom the Murphrees’ house. ¶10. W h ile in jail, Jenkins wrote a letter to the Murphrees. The l etter was addressed: “To the people who I h urt.” In the letter, Jenkins apologized “f or w hat [ he did].” Jenkins wrote that he needed m oney f or purchasing drugs. He also asked f o r f o rgiveness f

rom the

4Murphrees. This letter was adm itted into evidence.

¶11. Jenkins t estif

ied in h i s d e f

e n s e a t t r i al. Jenkins d enied any involvem e nt in the burglary

. Jenkins claim ed that he was being used as a “scapegoat” becau s e h e w a s a convicted f

elon. Jenkins t estif

ied that on February 3, 2014, he was at Morgan’s house with
Norwo o d , S t a r k ey , Morgan, and McGregor. He testif ied that they were all using cry stal

m eth. L ater that night, Starkey and Jenkins went t o m eet with McGregor. Jenkins testif ied that every thing up t o t h a t p o int was “sort of f uzzy ” due to being “f

ar out there on drugs.” Jenkins claim e d t h a t McGregor gave him som e m oney because McGregor owed him f or drugs that he had pur c h a s e d f or them to use. Jenkins also testif ied that McGregor let h im borrow som e m o ney because he was going to let Jenkins d o s o m e work f or him t he f

ollowing day . Jenkins testif

i ed he was pulled over by police af ter m eeting with McGregor. ¶12. Jenkins claim ed he did not know Brian Murphree. Jenkins also described him self as

a “walking p awn s hop.” He explained that he was alway s buy ing, selling, a nd trading item s. J enkins also testif

ied t hat the letter he wrote to the M urphrees was n ot i n t e n d e d a s a conf ession t o the burglary

. Jenkins explained that he wrote the letter because his f am ily and the Murphrees were good f riends. ¶13. The jury returned a verdict of guilty against Jenkins f or burglary of a dwelling. T he trial court sentenced Jenki ns to twenty -f i ve y ears in the custody of the Mississippi Departm ent of Corrections, with twenty y ears to serve f ollowed by f

ive y ears of postrelease supervision. On January 28, 2 0 15, Jenkins f iled a m o tion f

or a judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a m otion f or a new trial. The trial court denied the m otion, and

5Jenkins tim ely f iled his notice of

appeal. ¶14. J e n k i n s a p p e a l s t o t h i s C o u r t arguing that the jury verdict w a s a g a i n s t t h e overwhelm ing weight of

the evidence. Finding no error, we af f irm

. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶15. The M ississippi Suprem e C ourt has outlined the standard of review when addressing a challenge to the weight of the evidence:
In reviewing a challenge t o the weight of t he e vidence, this Court will overturn a v erdict only when it i s so contrary to the overwhelm ing w eight of th e evidence that t o allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.

. . . [ T]his Court m

ust view the evidence in the light mo s t f a v o r a b le to the verdict. I f the verdict is against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence, the proper rem edy is t o grant a new trial, but this rem edy should be used only in exceptional cases where the evidence preponderates heav i l y against the verdict.
W arwick v. State , 179 So. 3d 1069, 1073 (¶13) (Miss. 2015) (internal citations and quotations

om itted).
DISCUSSION
Wheth e r t h e verdict w as against t he overw helm ing w eight of the evidence. ¶16. Jenkins argues that the verdict was against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence.
In support of this c laim , Jenkins a rgues that he w as sim ply in the wrong place at t he wrong tim e; the State’s witnesses had incentive s t o t e s t i f y against h im to avoid charges; his testim o ny contradicted the State’s w i t n e sses; and Of f icer Robertson’s testim ony was not credible. ¶17. The j ury is the s ole judge of the weight of the evidence and t he c r e d i b i l i t y o f the witnesses. W

i l liams v
. State , 64 So. 3d 1029, 1033 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2 011) (citing Nix

6v. State , 8 So. 3d 141, 146 (¶26) ( Miss. 2009)). As such, conf licts i n t he testim o ny

are f or the jury to resolve. Id

. H ere, the jury heard the con f l i c t s i n t e s t im ony , rejected Jenkins’s testim o ny , and f

ound him guilty f or burglary

of a dwelling. ¶18. At tria l , t h e j u r y h eard the State’s witnesses testif y regarding their o wn plea deals, reduced c harges, and sentences in connection w ith the burglary of t h e M u rphrees’ house. Norwood testif

ied that h e and Jenkins burglarized the M urphrees’ house. Of f icer R obertson testif i ed that he determ i ned the cash he g ave McGregor to purchase the stolen shotgun f rom Jenkins was the sam e cash that was f ound in Jenkins’s possession when he was arrested. ¶19. Arm strong testif

ied that he bought a t a b l e t f rom Jenkins that was later identif ied as the M urphrees’ tablet. W atts t estif ied that Jenkins b rought him a l aptop to work o n that was later identif

ied as the Murphrees’ laptop. Of f icers discovered a lighter taken f r o m the Murphrees’ hous e i n J e nkins’s room at Morgan’s house. Morgan discovered the Murhpre e s’.22-caliber rif le at his house where Jenkins was living at the tim e and turned it

over it to the sherif

f ’ s d epartm ent. Furtherm ore, Jenkins’s letter h e wrote to the M urphrees, apologizing f

or “hurting” them

and asking f

or f orgiveness, was adm itted into evidence. ¶20. Af ter viewing the evidence in the l ight m ost f avorable t o the v erdict, we f ind that the jury ’s verdict was not against the overwhelm ing weight of the evide n c e . T heref ore, we af f irm the judgm e nt of

the circuit court. ¶21. T H E J U D G M E N T O F T HE CALHOUN COUNTY CIRCUIT C OURT O F C O N V I C T I O N O F B U R G L A R Y O F A D W E L LING AND SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y
FIVE YEARS IN THE CUST O D Y OF THE M ISSISSIPPI D EPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH TWENTY YE A RS TO SERVE, FOLLOWED BY FIVE Y E A R S O F P O S T R

E LEASE SUPERVISION, IS AFFIRMED. ALL CO S T S O F T H I S APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO CALHOUN COUNTY.

7L E E , C .J., IRVING A ND GRIFFIS, P . J J . , B A R N E S , I S H E E , C A R L T O N , F A I R , WILSON AND GREENLEE, JJ., CONCUR.

8